BVA Case 10-3273: Back

In October 2009,the 5 examiner opined that the appellant's macular degeneration was less likely than not related to his military service,including RFR.

In the decision here on appeal,the Board denied disability compensation for macular degeneration and B-MALT as a result of exposure to nonionizing radiation.

Although the appellant's service records confirmed his duties as a radar operator,the Board found that the record contained no evidence of ionizing radiation exposure or the claimed high levels or even low levels of RFR exposure.

Additionally, in determining that the preponderance of the evidence was against the appellant's claim, the Board found Dr.

The Parties'Arguments On appeal,the appellant argues that the Board erred when it found no evidence of in-service exposure to ionizing or nonionizing radiation and rejected the appellant's lay evidence as not credible regarding his proximity to radar equipment.

The appellant also argues that VA failed to fulfill its duty to assist,the Board ignored evidence indicating that radar systems emit both ionizing and nonionizing radiation, and the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases to deny his claims.

He argues that the Board erred when it failed to require development of his claim based on exposure to ionizing as well as nonionizing radiation,and argues that remand is required for an additional search of local unit and installation records,which the Air Force memoranda indicated might contain records of occupational radiation exposure.

To the extent that the appellant challenges the Board's dismissal of lay evidence as not credible,the Secretary contends that the Board merely found the evidence not credible as to nexus,and not as to his proximity to radar equipment in service.