## Facts

- James A. Bardwell served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from November 1944 to January 1945.
- In 2001, he sought VA service connection for an eye/vision disability, alleging in-service exposure to “chemical gas” during training that burned his eyes and led to later vision loss.
- He testified that his vision deteriorated after service and that by 1978 he could not work due to vision problems.
- A records search found no service documentation verifying chemical/gas exposure.
- A private ophthalmologist reported Bardwell was legally blind, described findings consistent with toxic retinopathy, and stated the condition appeared associated with gaseous chemical exposure.
- VA did not dispute a current severe eye disability; the dispute centered on whether an in-service event occurred and whether VA had to obtain a medical examination or opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board permissibly found Bardwell’s lay testimony of in-service chemical-gas exposure not credible, including consideration of the absence of corroborating records.
2. Whether VA had a duty to provide a medical examination or opinion under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i) when the Board found no in-service event, injury, or disease occurred.
3. Whether the Board adequately considered the “places, types, and circumstances” of service under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) when assessing credibility and service connection.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s denial of service connection.
- The court held the Board did not err in finding no in-service event, injury, or disease affecting the eyes and in rejecting the claimed exposure as not credible.
- Because the in-service event element was not established, VA was not required to provide a medical examination or opinion under § 5103A(d) and § 3.159(c)(4)(i).
- The court held the Board’s reasoning sufficiently reflected consideration of service circumstances under § 1154(a), including the short length of active service and the Board’s conclusion that undocumented chemical/gas testing during that period was unlikely.

## Legal Principles

- The Board, as factfinder, may weigh lay evidence and make credibility determinations if it provides adequate reasons or bases.
- Absence of contemporaneous documentation may be considered in evaluating credibility, but a lack of records alone cannot automatically render lay evidence not credible.
- VA’s duty to provide a medical examination under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i) requires, among other elements, evidence indicating that a disability may be associated with an in-service event, injury, or disease.
- When the Board finds as a fact that no in-service event, injury, or disease occurred, VA is not required to obtain an examination based solely on a claimant’s rejected account of the event.
- In deciding service connection, the Board must consider service “places, types, and circumstances” under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) and may use those circumstances in assessing the plausibility of asserted events.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of service connection for an eye disability because the Board reasonably found the claimed in-service chemical-gas exposure did not occur; without an established in-service event, VA had no duty to obtain a medical examination, and the Board’s credibility analysis adequately accounted for the circumstances of service.


Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010)