Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): certain procedural , advantages in attempting to present and develop direct-service-connection claims does not mean that any of those claims necessarily have merit. That is what the claims-development process under § 3.311 is designed to determine, just as is the duty to assist that attaches under section 5107(a) as to well-grounded claims, regarding which the Court has emphasized:“The amount of evidence sufficient to make a claim well grounded differs from the amount sufficient for an award of service connection”, Meyer v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 425, 432 (1996); “to be well grounded a claim need not be supported by evidence sufficient for the claim to be granted. Rather, the law establishes only a 'preliminary threshold of plausibility”. Robinette, 8 Vet.App. at 76; see also Alemany, supra (<HOLDING>). It must be remembered that the § 3.311 
 Holding statements: (A) holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional (B) holding that no federal nexus is required (C) holding medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as possible suffices for that aspect of wellgroundedclaim requirements (D) holding that there was no new and material evidence to reopen claim where newly presented evidence was not accompanied by any medical evidence indicating a nexus to service (E) holding that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as very well might have been although not conclusive suffices to well ground claim
Output (English): holding that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as very well might have been although not conclusive suffices to well ground claim