Browder v. Brown — Board must explain aggravation analysis and may not reject prescribed visual acuity testing categorically

The appellant sought service connection for a right eye disability, arguing that a preexisting eye condition was worsened by service. The Court had previously held in Browder I that the record showed worsening of right-eye vision during service and remanded for application of the presumption of aggravation. On the later appeal, the Board again denied the claim, relying on the stability of corrected visual acuity and expressing skepticism about the Snellen test. The Court held that the Board had not complied with the required aggravation analysis because it failed to explain the criteria used to determine whether there had been an increase in disability and, if so, whether the presumption of aggravation was rebutted by clear and unmistakable evidence. The Court also held that the Board could not categorically reject the Snellen test results, which VA regulations used to measure visual acuity, absent a persuasive factual basis in the individual case. In addition, the Court found inadequate reasons or bases for the Board’s treatment of myopic astigmatism as a preexisting developmental defect and required the Board to address the presumption of soundness and whether clear and unmistakable evidence showed preexistence. The decision matters because it tightens the Board’s obligation to articulate aggravation reasoning and to ground medical-characterization findings in adequate explanation rather than conclusory assertions.

For a preexisting condition, the Board must explain how it determined whether in-service worsening constituted an increase in disability under 38 U.S.C. § 1153, apply the presumption of aggravation if an increase is shown, and support any rebuttal with clear and unmistakable evidence; it must also provide adequate reasons or bases for characterizing a condition as preexisting or developmental.

Advocates should insist on a step-by-step aggravation analysis and challenge unsupported Board conclusions about preexistence, developmental defects, or testing methodology.

Browder is important because it prevents the Board from using conclusory medical-labeling or simplistic comparisons to avoid the aggravation presumption. It also supports arguments that VA must explain why standardized examination results are rejected and must address presumption-of-soundness issues when preexistence is disputed.

Inadequate Reasons or Bases [Procedural Error]

A veteran enters service with a documented eye defect, shows measurable worsening on separation testing, and the Board denies aggravation by saying corrected vision was unchanged and the separation test is unreliable. Browder supports remand because the Board must explain the aggravation criteria, address the presumption of aggravation, and justify any rejection of the testing results.

Use Browder to attack Board decisions that skip the Hensley/section 1153 analysis, dismiss worsening based on an incomplete metric, or declare a condition developmental without a supported explanation.

Hensley v. Brown, Gilbert v. Derwinski, Sammarco v. Derwinski, Fletcher v. Derwinski