ok the next case is number zero six seventy sixty nine donald w stone insta department of veterans affairs mr carpenter established that the veteran engaged in combat no because there is no procedure in v a regulations or in the statute for that determination the determination it is within the confines of the he was shot down by the enemy and that as a result of those experiences he developed a psychiatric neurosis which was diagnosed as post traumatic stress disorder that is satisfactory late evidence to establish that he was engaged in combat with the vets or what the board did and what the v a persisted do is to suggest that you can simply say you're not a combat veteran without any regard to the lay testimony that flies directly not only in the face of this portion of the regulations but in the preceding portions of the regulation of the low fifty four a and the requirement under fifty one  be to consider later but where is that in the record in the board's decision i understood the board's decision to correct me if i'm wrong to not be that they rejected mr stonefly evidence but rather that they held that they looked at the entire record and it said you know in that context his just his lay evidence which is only his testimony which i think that all there was was not sufficient because of this the absence of other  here that the record does not support a finding that the best way to gauge in combat with the enemy during active service in vietnam and the record does support that find because the veteran said so and that lay evidence in conjunction with the other in dushku of where he was the nature and circumstances of his service which are reflected in page twenty two of the joint appendix in which it describes his service records of being eleven months of service in vietnam describes the unit that he was attached to his military occupational specialty and describes his service personnel records reflecting participation in a name campaign that mr carpenter aren't we and territory where we shouldn't be which isn't your analysis you're saying the board looked at the evidence and i have difficulty with their analysis of the evidence or their weighing of the evidence and you know better than anybody around here that that's not where we were go and if that were the territory that would be correct the territory here is how what is the the uncontested testimony of that and that he was fired upon by the end while he was it is serves well that scene and that to be the issue of whether you can reject that the question is whether or not you were required to conclude that that and of itself is a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that was combat there and that goes to the fact that there is no other evidence and what the board relies upon that it is the absence of evidence to support the conclusion that it wasn't to prove his combat status a more than to prove his disease or injury was incurred when mr stone was in his active military service he was subjected to circumstances that involved engagement in time at the end as he himself described the board simply says there's no evidence in the record that contradicted by his way you can't say there's no the record when clearly there was evidence in the record what they're doing is they're applying the corroboration standard of the regulation in three point three zero or as to the statute and were wire both for and corroborate that he was a combat veteran there is no corroboration requirement articulated in this fashion the corroboration requirement is a function of the regulation that applies the burden of demonstrated that he was in combat how else does a combat veteran do it because as the government has suggested in their group the statute must presuppose that he is a combat veteran how do you get to that pre the consistency of the circumstances of his service he was in vietnam for eleven months he described what he was the birds should shift to the government to demonstrate that he was horror lenient rules and then the question becomes how does a combat veteran prove how does he corroborate that he was in service and what you do is you then take away the benefit of combat assertion and you say it does not your honor and therefore it should not be read into that you can force the veteran and the v a did in this case it is the veteran court that his court allowed them to do is to force them to corroborate that assertion service related injury not per the sorry that has to be inseparable this statute has to be read as a whole in order to make the lightning of the evidence really benefit reasonable because this veteran has no other way of demonstrating was out there recording that while he was on time what people were shooting at now if you ask this person to produce corroboration that someone shot it there is no can't get compensation because you can't prove you were caught up or because there's nothing in the record that shows you were pocket his late testimony consistent with both the language of subsection a and b along with  circumstance for any other condition other than post traumatic stress disorder we wouldn't be happened this debate because of the that would be sufficient to establish if he said he got this injury because of something that happened to him physically that would be having this discussion it's the nature of the psychiatric condition that creates an unreasonable enhancing of the burden which we believe is in a platoon with other soldiers who could then say yes he was there with us and one combat that's way evidence and that well i guess maybe i'm ahead of myself is there a definition somewhere combat whether that is within the definition to come back well that was what they found  this is what i did in my live in months in there not only was i am radio operator or whatever but i did these other things where i was attacked and that says is that on this on could be contradicted evidence because there was nothing to say no you are exempt from this exposure to the enemy he says therefore all you have to do is shift the burden of proof now it's up to the government to say no you didn't do that now you had some special job where you were excuses from exposure to the enemy who would never use whatever might none of this i think was there so i'm really just creating it but all you need all that i think mr carpenter is asking for is it when you have my evidence there is a prior to it which the burden own testimony that i was shot at is enough since he was there and nobody said no you weren't nobody said no you didn't serve on this kind of duty based on the state's indiana that's why we're here how this is a procedural question isn't it he makes the statement that he confronted the enemy at least sufficiently if that were true that's not sufficient to establish combat or is the government's position that he couldn't corroborate that he was actually on guard duty and subject to sniper fire and that's why he doesn't get the question ok he testified that he was on guard duty on occasion and subject to sniper fire and in fact somebody was won't get under your definition of combat whatever it may be if that were true let's assume they decided to believe him or let's assume he brought in twenty other people to say yes he was on guard duty subject to sniper fire is that sufficient to establish that he was found that they wouldn't be easy for the secretary to come forward with evidence to say to show no radio operators never stand guard duty or yes everybody takes their turn guarding the compound or whatever the circumstances might be this in this information security within the possession of the the military  he was not in combat there's nothing that you resided that says this veteran was shielded from confrontation with the enemy for instance if that broad definition are negative service records are negative for combat related to the designation yes and then they fear to say any combat related activity how does one know combat related duty through persons with specific military occupational specialties that are listed in that provision but i think that that this does amount to the procedural deficit here where there is no way for the veteran to know that head of time how to defend his own layette and the real critical procedural problem here is that the burden ought to shift when there simply and they both both military departments them the v a and said that there was no detail verify any of it you're saying that mere statement but with due respect a they were asking the wrong question they were trying to get someone to verify shotwell fired and question as judge millette said well they went beyond that they said there was no indication of any person that could be contacted that was with them you're talking about a person who develops psychiatric synthetics twenty plus years after the fact he goes to the v a for help he describes the problems that he's have and he gets a clinical diagnosis for a psychiatric disability and then he's told we now need you to give us the name and addresses of those people who are with you so we can corroborate the fact that it's well shooting in time frankly absurd times compensation to deny this veteran that and under any other circumstances where he had a poster of his diagnosis of a current disability related to inexperience and service he would be entitled to compensation under level ten but the a is saying no you can't because we reject your late mr money alone as being sufficient without any evidence to the contrary except the absence of it and the absence of evidence in this court case law combat and shot but you know this is a non and the service system he is not supposed to be giving an affidavit he's not supposed to keep sworn testimony his statement to his da psychiatry's ones in is really statement that supports his assertion that he engaged in combat with the enemy and until the v a comes back with evidence to contradict back that assertion should stand and since it's on rebuttal and unrefuted