BVA9503184 DOCKET NO. 93-08 412 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for keratoconus of the right eye. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Bernard T. DoMinh, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1966 to December 1968. He served on full-time duty in the Army National Guard of Nebraska from April 1984 to August 1986. This is deemed active duty for training for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c)(3) (1993). This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by the St. Louis, Missouri, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied the veteran’s claim for service connection for keratoconus of the right eye. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that keratoconus of his right eye was a condition which began during his period of active duty for training. 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 supports the veteran’s claim for service connection for keratoconus of the right eye. FINDING OF FACT The first manifestation of keratoconus of the right eye occurred several months after the veteran began his extended period of active duty for training. CONCLUSION OF LAW Keratoconus of the right eye was incurred during active duty for training. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101(24), 106, 1131, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.303 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION I. Factual Background The veteran’s service medical records for his period of active service (from December 1966 to December 1968) are negative for any showing of an eye disorder. A March 1969 VA examination showed that the veteran had no eye abnormalities at that time. Service records from the Nebraska Army National Guard for the years from 1977 to 1986 show that the veteran served on continuous full-time duty from April 1984 through August 1986. Medical records for this period show that the veteran had worn corrective contact lenses for both eyes since 1969. In September 1984 the veteran was diagnosed with blepharitis in his right eye. During an eye consultation on September 21, 1984, the veteran complained of having blurred vision in his right eye. The findings of an optometric examination led to a diagnosis of high irregular astigmatism of the right eye indicative of possible keratoconus. A June 1985 optometric report shows that the veteran complained of problems with his right contact lens. Scratches and deposits were found on his right contact lens, and it was recommended that he obtain hard, gas-permeable contact lenses that would fit his eyes better. February 1986 opthalmological treatment reports shows that the veteran complained of pain in his left eye after a tree branch had swept across this eye, pulling out his contact lens and scratching the eye. The records do not show a report of trauma to right eye. A July 1986 medical examination report shows a normal clinical evaluation of the veteran’s eyes. On vision examination, it was noted that he was wearing gas-permeable contact lenses and that he was not tested for uncorrected distant and near visual acuity. A September 1986 medical examination report shows the veteran’s eyes were normal. Visual acuity was corrected by contact lenses to 20/50 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left. In April 1992, the veteran filed a claim for service connection for keratoconus of the right eye. He stated that his condition began during his 1984-1986 period of active duty for training and that, prior to that time, he had never been treated for problems with his right eye or diagnosed with keratoconus. In an April 1992 consent for release of private medical records, the veteran stated that he was being treated for eye problems exclusively by Dr. Bradley M. Williams and that the only other records showing treatment for his eyes would be in his service medical records. In a May 1992 statement, the veteran’s optometrist, Brad Williams, O.D., reported that he had examined the veteran in April 1990 and discovered that he had keratoconus of his right eye. Dr. Williams described keratoconus as an inherited disease. In a December 1992 letter, Dr. Williams stated that one of his optometric specialties is diagnosing and treating patients with keratoconus, and that he had reviewed the veteran’s service optometric examination report dated September 21, 1984, and it was his opinion that the findings of this report indicate that the veteran definitely had keratoconus at that time. In an April 1993 letter, Dr. Williams stated that, though current medical theory indicates that keratoconus is inherited, the actual etiology of keratoconus remains uncertain. Dr. Williams cited two medical texts which state that keratoconus is familial in nature. II. Analysis The veteran’s claim is well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), in that it is not inherently implausible. Relevant evidence has been properly developed, and no further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the duty to assist. Id. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated while performing active duty for training or injury incurred or aggravated while performing inactive duty training. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101(24), 106, 1131. Congenital or developmental defects are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation, and are not entitled to service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Keratoconus of the right eye was first noted during the veteran’s period of active duty for training. The possible presence of keratoconus was first noted in September 1984, over 5 months after he began this period of active duty for training. Since then, it has been confirmed by the veteran’s optometrist, Brad Williams, O.D., to have been "unquestionably" present at the time of the September 1984 examination in service. Dr. Williams’ statements showing current treatment for keratoconus are sufficient to establish chronicity of the condition, notwithstanding the fact that keratoconus was not noted in subsequent eye examinations performed during the remainder of the veteran’s period of active duty for training. Eye examinations made during active service from 1966 to 1968 and a March 1969 VA eye examination show no keratoconus, and the veteran has clearly stated that, prior to 1984, he was never diagnosed with or treated for keratoconus. All the evidence compels the finding that keratoconus first manifested itself more than five months into the service period in question. Whether it is a familial or hereditary disorder does not bar service connection when the first manifestations occur during service. See O.G.C. Prec. 67- 90 (July 18, 1990). ORDER Service connection for keratoconus of the right eye is granted. J. E. DAY 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.