BVA Case 22-6636: Back

at 920,and opined that the appellant's hypertension was not related to his sinusitis.

Regarding the vision disorder,the Board noted that the appellant began wearing glasses in service and that he had defective vision at the separation examination.

The Board determined that because there was both in-service evidence of a vision disorder and a current diagnosis of a vision disorder,an examination was necessary to determine the nature and etiology of the appellant's vision disorder.

The Board found the June 2015 opinion for nose conditions inadequate because it was based on an inaccurate factual premise.

The Board noted that the examiner marked the deviated septum as congenital in Section I and traumatic in Section III and then the examiner provided a negative nexus opinion because the deviated septum was noted as congenital in the service treatment record.

Because the entrance examination was silent for notations of a deviated septum,the Board found the examination inadequate.

The examiner found that the appellant's hypertension was not related to his sleep apnea as his sleep apnea was eliminated by using a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)machine.

The examiner opined that the claimed eye conditions were less likely than not related to any event or injury in service,noting that ocular hypertension and cataracts were naturally occurring and that refractive errors were often naturally occurring.