BVA9500505 DOCKET NO. 93-06 729 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Lincoln, Nebraska THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for bilateral defective vision. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. F. Gussio, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from October 1940 to October 1941 and from October 1941 to August 1945. The veteran's service has not been verified. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from a June 1992 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Board notes that on the VA examination in June 1992 the diagnoses were glaucoma suspect with history of high intraocular pressure of 28, pseudo-exfoliation of the left eye, and trace of cataracts, bilaterally. While the veteran is service connected for bilateral defective vision, service connection for additional pathology of the eyes has not been established. In March 1993, the veteran's representative argued that there could be various causes of defective vision and requested that the VA undertake additional development to determine what eye disability was considered service connected. The Board interprets this as a separate claim for service connection for an eye disability other than defective vision. Such issue has not been developed for appellate review. Because neither the veteran nor his representative identified what eye pathology should be service connected, the RO should contact the veteran and request him to specifically identify what additional pathology of the eyes he claims should be service connected. Following a response by the veteran, the RO should take appropriate action to develop any additional claims. The Board further notes that 38 C.F.R. § 3.324 provides that the veteran may receive a combined 10 percent disability rating when he has two or more separate, permanent, noncompensable disabilities. In June 1994, service connection for hypertension was established and assigned a 10 percent rating. Because the veteran now receives a compensable rating, his claim for a compensable evaluation pursuant to § 3.324 is moot. CONTENTION OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that his service-connected bilateral defective vision has increased in severity and warrants a compensable rating. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for a compensable rating for the service- connected defective vision. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. It is not shown that the veteran has corrected visual acuity of 20/100 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye. CONCLUSION OF LAW A compensable rating for bilateral defective vision is not warranted. 38 C.F.R § 4.75 and Code 6079 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran's claim is well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (1991). That is, it is plausible. The Board is satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed. No further assistance to the veteran is required in order to comply with the duty to assist him as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Bilateral defective vision was noted in service. On the separation examination in August 1945, visual acuity was 20/40, bilaterally. Service connection for bilateral defective vision was established effective August 1945 and assigned a non- compensable rating since that time. On VA examination in June 1948, the veteran complained of a bloodshot left eye and defective vision in the left eye. Visual acuity was 20/20, bilaterally, with weak minus sphere on the left. The lids and external ocular movement were normal. The corneas were clear. The pupils were equal, regular, and reacted normal to light. The media were clear. The lens, retina, and fundus were normal, bilaterally. VA outpatient treatment records reveal that the veteran's visual acuity was 20/25-2, bilaterally, in October 1991. In March 1992, his visual acuity was 20/40-1 in the right eye and 20/30-3 in the left eye. Pinhole was 20/25, bilaterally. On VA examination in June 1992, the veteran's visual acuity was 20/25 in the right eye and 20/40 in the left. Pinholes were 20/25, bilaterally. Corrected visual acuity of 20/40 (6/12) in one eye warrants a noncompensable evaluation when corrected visual acuity in the other eye is also 20/40 (6/12). Corrected visual acuity of 20/100 (6/30) in one eye warrant a 10 percent evaluation when corrected visual acuity in the other eye is 20/40 (6/12). 38 C.F.R. § 4.75 and Code 6079. The medical evidence reveals that the veteran's visual acuity is currently 20/25 in that right and 20/40 in the left. Accordingly, a compensable rating for bilateral defective vision is not warranted. Consideration has also been given to the potential application of the various provisions of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4, whether or not they were raised by the veteran, as required by Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). In particular, we find that the evidence discussed above does not suggest that the veteran's service-connected bilateral defective vision presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to render impractical the application of the regular scheduler standards so as to warrant an assignment of an extraschedular evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). For example, the disability did not recently require frequent periods of hospitalization, nor does it present marked interference with employment that has not already been contemplated by the current evaluation. ORDER An increased (compensable) rating for bilateral defective vision is denied. J. U. JOHNSON Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.