Thi s version includ es the e rrat a dtd 21S ep04-e
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

N O . 02-1012
D EN V ER S I ZEMO RE , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided Septembe r 3, 2004 )
Se an Ke nd

all , o f B ou lde r, Col or a do , w a s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt.
Tim Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Ass ist a nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Brian B. Rippel, Deputy Assistant Gene ral Couns el; and John D. M cNamee , all of Washington, D.C., we re on the brief

for the a ppellee.
Be fore I VERS, STEI

NB ERG, and GREENE, J ud ge s. STEI NB ERG, Judge : Veter an De nver Sizemore (the appellant) , thro u gh co u nsel, seeks

re vie w of a June 6, 20 02 , Bo a rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls (B VA or B oa

rd ) de c isi on that den ie d h is c la im for De partment of V eter an s Affa irs (VA) service connec tion for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Recor d (R.) at 1-12. T he appellant and the Secre tary eac h filed a brief, and t he appe llant fi le d a re ply br ie f. Th is a

pp e a l is tim e ly , a

nd the Cou rt ha s ju ri sdic ti on purs ua nt t o 3 8 U .S. C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a ). F or t he reasons set forth below, the Court will vacate the J une 2002 B VA decision and r emand the matter to the B oard f or fur ther de velopment and r eadjudication.

I. Re le va nt Bac kgr ound The veter an serve d on active duty in the U.S. A rmy from Aug ust 1966 to Feb ru ar y 1 969, including se rvice in Vietnam in an ar tillery unit from J anuar

y 1967 to J anuar

y 1968. R. at 16, 294. He se rved w ith C Battery , 3rd B attalion, 18th Artillery , as a cannone er. R. at 294. Ser vice medic al2

rec ords (SMRs) indicated that he suffe red " [i ]n t er n al der ang ement" of the lef t knee a fter ha

ving fallen of f an a rmored pe rsonnel ca

rrier while on per imeter g uard duty on May 12, 1967. R. at 471, 475, 497. An SMR noted that he had "c aug ht [ his] foot in [t he] latch as he f ell and interna lly

rotated (twisted) [his left] knee be fore he hit the g round." R. at 497. Acc ording to his S MRs, on May 18, 1967, he was hospitaliz ed at the 249t h Gene ral Hospital in J apan and on J uly 24, 1967, he re sumed his duty as a c annonee r with the C Battery unit. R. at 294 (DA Form 20 – rec ord of assignments); 504-07 (SMRs). A Fe bruar y 1987 VA examination report include d a diag nosis of the veteran as having , inter alia, a " [n] ervous c ondition which has bee n prese nt since mi litary service ." R. at 122. The re port noted the following : "[The vete ran] cannot f unction very

well when he is a round a lot of people. He has trouble sl eeping

. He does not mention any specific Vietnam experienc es which a re a problem to him, if further evaluation is neede d for this , he will have to have a psychiatric examination." R. at 12 2. Th e re c or d on

a pp e a l ( RO A) c on ta ins no re c or d o f a no the r e xami natio n f

or the ne xt six y e a rs
. See R. at 122-92. I n Fe bruar

y 1993, the veter an filed a claim with a VA reg ional office (RO) fo r s ervice

connec tion for, inter alia, a nervous disorder. R . at 184. VA medic al re cords f or that month noted that the veter an complaine d of, amongother thing s, fl as h b acks a nd nightmar es and his belief that the y we re re la te d to his se rv ic e in V ie tna m. R . at 192, 19 5. He wa s hosp ita lize d in a VA f a c ili ty in April 1993 for an "[a]djustm ent disorder" , and VA hospital r ecor ds noted a discharg e diag nosis of, inter alia, " features of [PTSD] ". R. at 267-69. On April 2 9 , 1 9 9 3 , the VARO de nied servic e
connec tion for a ne rvous condition. R. at 239, 241-42. On Aug ust 30, 1994, the vetera n filed a claim for service connec tion for PTS D. R. at 244. Th e fo l lowing month, the RO re quested a dditional information from the vete ran r eg ardingthe incidents in service that he fe lt led to PTSD. R. at 247. I n October 1994, he submitted, in support of his PTSD c la im, a

state me nt a s f

oll ow s: On or a bout the 24 of J uly 1967 at 1: 00 AM in the morning

th we w [ ere] st ruck by

Viet Kong [si c] mortar fire . There w[ere] 17 wounded. Sgt Ward and Spc. 4 Prior. I don' t know or for g ot the[i r] first nam es
. T h er e w[ as] fire all over . [Three] of our g uns were kn oc ke d o ut[; ] ev e ry

thi ngwa s d e str oy e d. Ab ou t [th e ] 8 of Ap ri l th 19 67 we we re un de r a

no the r atta c k a

bo ut 8 0 mi le s n or

th o f C hu -L

ui.3 Idon' t rec all the L [anding]-Z [one;] both these attac ks took place at the same L -Z

. There wer e 4 of my unit hurt but I don' t rec all the[ir] names. We w ere all in the 1st of the 25th inf antry d i v i s i o n h eavy art[illery ] company

. [I ]n Ma y 19 67 Ido n' t r e c a ll the date [,] we we re str uc k a g a in by mortar f ire[.] I was knocked off an American Patrol Carrier a bout 1 0 : 3 0 a t[ ] n i g h t

. T h e n e x tm o r n i n g I w a s s e n tt o C a m R o n [ s i c ] B a y. Ista y e d th e re fo r a

bo ut 3 da y s and the n [w as] sen t to No rt

h Ca mp Drake hospital in Toky o J apan[, wher e] I stay ed 63 day [s] for my left knee[.] After the 63 da

y s in the hospital I went bac k to Viet Nam at our Camp B ase w hich was Chu-L ui. Istay ed ther e for

22 d ay s and the n w e nt b a c k to my

un it.
. . . Ifee l what I

[di d] i n Viet Na m re all y tore my world and my life apart. I was a g unner on a[n] 8" [ s]elf[ -p]ropel[l] ed g un and also a 175 [ s]elf[ -p]ropel[l] ed [gun]. Iknow in my hear t Ikilled a lot of people in Viet Nam but I don' t rea lly

car e. I t's on my

mind all the time but it's something I

have to live with.
R. at 260-61. I n Jan ua ry 19 95 , a VAps y chi atr ist , f

oll ow inga

VAc omp e ns a tio n a

nd pe ns ion (C & P) examination, diagnose d the veter an as having "mode rate ly sever e" PTSD. R. at 298-300. At that time, the veter an noted that he had been nervous since he was in the service . R. at 298. He stated that he wa s a g u n n e r in a s e lf

- p r o p e ll e d h o w it ze r a n d a g u a r d , a n d r e late d th a t h e w a s u s u a ll y on
rec onnaissance missions , had see n casua lties, including the de ath of a n acqua intance, w as subject to close hits, a

nd was knocked off his gun car rier and hurt his le ft knee. R. at 299. I n a May 1995 C&P examination report, a V A psy cholog ist, Robert Turee n , Ph.D, examined the vetera n and

c on c lud e d th a t th e re wa s " no e vid e nc e on wh ic h to ma

ke a dia g no sis of

[PTSD ]" a nd

that " [m]ost of the proble ms refle cte d i n t h e responses to test material sug g est more of a cha rac terolog ical disturbance ". R. at 304. The report of t hat ex amination related t hat t he veteran ha d stated that he had bee n "blown of

f" a vehicle by a mortar shell and had see n numerous people killed while he wa s in Vietnam and that this still bot hers him today . R. at 302-03.4

I n Aug ust 1995, in response to the RO' s reque st f or information conc erningthe veter an, the U.S. Army Environmental Support G roup (ESG) informed the RO that both Chu L ai and L anding Z one Eng lish were attacked in 1967, but that, in orde r for the ESG to provide fur

ther re sear ch

con ce rn i n g specific combat incidents, the ve tera n must provide additional information, including specific dates, ty

pe, and loc ation of incidents, full name s of ca sualties, and unit desig nations. R. at 306. The ESG noted that the RO had not included the ve tera n' s Vietnam tour date s or his completed unit de signation to the company level. R. at 307. The ESG also noted that morning repor ts can be

us e d to ve ri fy

da ily pe rs on ne l a c tio ns su c h a s w ound e d in a c tio n, kil le d in

a c tio n, a nd

mis sin g in

a c tio n, a nd

that su c h r e po rt s cou ld be ob ta ine d fr om t he Natio na l Pe rs on ne l Re c or ds Ce nte r ( NPR C) in S t. L ou is, Mis so ur i. R . at 30 6. Th e ESG fu rt he r no te d that " [s]tr e sso rs su c h a s Mr . Si zem or e [' s] killing many

people or his being knocked of

f a military

vehicle dur ing a

n enemy attack a re se ldom fou ndin th e com bat reco rds ." Ib id

. I n Se pte mbe r 1 99 5, the RO de nie d s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n f or PTSD. R. at 38 5- 86 . T he RO de c isi on no te d tha t the e vid e nc e wa s ina de qu a te to es ta bli sh that a stre ssf

ul e xpe ri e nc e su ff

ic ie nt t o
cause PTSD actually

occur red. Ib id . T he ve te ra

n f ile d a No tic e of

Di sa g re e me nt ( R. at 39 0) in Dec ember

1995, and the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) in Marc h 1996. R. at 406. At a VA he aringin May

1996, the veter an testified unde r oath. R. at 421-31. In Aug ust 1996, he underw ent a third VAC&P ex am i n at i o n fo r hi s mental disorder. R. at 450. The examining VA psy chiatrist di ag nosed t he veteran as having PTSD and noted the foll owing : "The patient does see m to have [PTSD] which seems to be service related." R. at 452. The RO issued a Supplemental SOC (SSOC) in Dece mber 1996. R. at 454. I n J une 1997, the RO re quested fur ther infor mation from the ESG (r ename d the "U.S. Armed Service Center f

or Resea rch of Unit Records" (USASCRUR)) in order to ver ify the veter an' s claimed stressors, and the RO provided more detailed infor mation about th e v eter an' s unit and alleg ed stressor inc id e n ts

. R. a t 4 6 2

. I n D e c e mb e r 1 9 9 7 , th e U SA SC RU R r e s p o n d e d , e n c lo s ing "O p er at i o n al R ep o rt s o f Le s s o n s L ea rn ed " ( OR L L s ) f o r t h e p er i o d

No v em b er

1 , 1 9 6 6 , t h ro u gh J anuar y 31, 1968. R. at 517. (The ORL L s showed the locations, missions , and combat activities of units, including B attery C; althoug h the reports listed casua lty statistics, no names wer e provide d. Ibid. ) T h e U S AS C R

URal s o en cl o s eda m o rn i n g re p o rt d at edJ u n e 2 5 , 1 9 6 7 , fo r t h e v et er an 's5

Battery C u n i t , and point ed out that the ORL L s and morning repor ts did not document a combat action occurringon J uly

24, 1967. Ib id . T he USA SCRU R no te d, ho we ve r, that th e re po rt s d id do c ume nt t

hat on June 24 , 1 96 7, a n e ne my a tta c k r e su lte d in

B a tte ry C' s su sta ini ngon e kil le d in action and 49 w ounded in ac tion. R. at 517 (USASC RUR cover le tter), 537 ( ORL Lfor pe riod ending J uly

31, 1967), 567-69 (morningrepor t dated June 25, 1967 ). The USASCRUR noted that morning repor

ts can be order ed fr om the NPRC i n St. L ouis, Missouri. R . at 517. The ORL Lfor the qua

rterly period be g inning F ebrua

ry 1, 1967, and endingApril 30, 1967,

no te d, int e r a lia , th a t th e ve te ra n' s unit ha d p a rt ic ipate d in Ta sk F or c e (T F ) O REG ON a nd that hi s unit "re inforc[ed] the [artillery ] fires" of another Battalion. R. at 523-24. The ORL Lfor the pe riod betwee n May

1 and Jul y

31, 1967, descr ibed oper ations on specific d ay s
. R

. at 536-37. F or example, it described the June 24, 1967, incident in w hich the veter an' s unit wa s attacke d resulting in one casua lty

and many

wounded in ac tion. R. at 537. Of the eleve n other ope rations desc ribed during that period, none included the rec eipt of enemy fire by the veter an' s unit. See R. at 536-37. I n a Nove mber 1998 C& P ex amination repor t b y a VA p sy chiatrist, the vete ran w as d i agn o s edas h av i n g, am o n g o t h er t h i n gs , a "p ro b ab l e p er s o n al i t y d i s o rd er ". R

. at 7 9 4

. Al t h o u gh it did not i nclude a

diag nosis of PTSD for the vete ra n , t he re port noted that he ha d stated that " he probably killed eig ht to ten enemy

soldiers" and " saw e leven of his friends kil led, m ostly

by mortars but also by

small arms fire " a

nd that the veter an noted that "the worst thing that happene d to him was that he had to e ng ag e and kill ene my soldiers, but he felt that it wa s justifiable by the fa ct that it was

a c o m b at s i tu at i o n an d

i twa s 'ei t h er

t h em o r m e'. " R

. at 7 9 2

. T h e r e p o rt n o t edt h at t h e v et er an 's

me dic a l hi sto ry

wa s p os iti ve " fo r left [ -] kn e e tr ou ble se c on da

ry to b e ing' blo w[n ] of

f a n A PC' in Vi etn am. " Ibid. I n Jan ua ry 19 99 , th e RO iss ue d a no the r SSO C. R. a t 79 7- 80 0. I n h is Su bs tanti ve Ap pe a l to the B oard, the veter an stated: "T he [S SOC] states the combat was on 6/24/67 a nd that is corre ct as Iwas re turned to t he unit two day s befor e the attack." R. at 821. I n an August 6, 1999, decision, the B oa rd de nie d ser

vic e c on ne c tio n for PTSD

. R. at 83 5- 42 . T he B oa rd c on c lud e d th a t th e ve te ra

n d id not eng ag e in c ombat with the enemy and that ther e wa s no cre dible supporting e vidence confirming the claimed stre ssors. R. at 836. The vete ran a ppeale d t h e 1 9 9 9 Boa

rd dec ision to t his Court (No. 99-1989) , which vac ated that decision and re manded the matter to the B oard f or re adjudication6

in light of 38 U.S.C . § 5103(a) , as ame nded by the Vete rans Claims Assistance A ct of 2000 (V CAA), Pu b

. L

. N o
. 1 0 6

- 4 7 5 , § 3 ( a ) , 1 1 4 St a t. 2 0 9 6 , 2 0 9 6

- 9 7 , a n d th is Co u rt' s o p in ion in Ho l l i d a y v. Principi , 14 Vet.App. 280, 286 ( 2001), overruled in part by Kuzma v. Principi , 341 F.3d 1327, 1329 (F ed. C ir. 2003) (c iting to Dyme nt v. Principi , 287 F.3d 1377, 1385 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002), and Bernklau v. Principi , 291 F.3d 795, 806 (F ed. Cir. 2002) ). R. at 920-21 (Court orde r date d April 27, 2001). Be fore the B oard de cision now on appe al, VA' s Gene ral Counsel issued on Oc tober 18, 1999 , a prec edent opinion that, among other thing s, (1) de fined the phr ase " eng ag ed in combat with the enemy " a s used in 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b); and (2) explained what evidenc e should b e considered satisfac tory

proof that a

veter an eng ag ed in combat with the e nemy . VA Ge n. Co u n
. P rec . 12-99 (Oc t. 18, 1999) [hereinaf

ter G.C. Prec . 12-99]. I n th e J u n e 2 0 0 2 BV A dec ision here on a ppeal, the B oard de nied servic e conne ction for PTSD , a ft e r f

ind ingthat ( 1) by

a pr e po nd e ra

nce o f th e e vid e nc e , th e ve te ra n d id n ot e ng a g e in

c omb a t w iththe e ne my

wh ile se rv ing in Vi e tna

m ( R. at 6) , ( 2) the re c or d c on ta ine d n o c re dib le supporting e vidence that confirme d any of t he veteran' s claimed stressors (R. at 2), a nd (3) the r ecor d

c on ta ine d n o d ia g no sis of PTSD re la te d to ve ri fi ed str e sso rs ( ibid. ). I n making its findings, the Boa rd relied on G.C. Prec. 12-99. The B oard a lso concluded that VA had c omplied with the VCAA, th a t th e r e c o r d w a s c o mp le te a n d a d e qu a te f o r a p p e ll a te r e v ie w , a n d th a t n o f u rth e r action wa s
nece ssary to meet the re quirements of the VCAA. R. at 3.

II. Contentions of

P artie s Th e a pp e lla nt u rg e s th e Court to re ve rs e a s c le a rl y e rr on e ou s the B oa rd ' s f ind ingthat he did not eng a g e in c o mb a t w it h th e e n e my a n d to r e ma

n d th e matt e r to th e B o a r d to a p p ly the combat presumption of sec tion 1154(b). Br ief (B r.) at 15-18. He argues that a unit may eng ag e in combat by "[s]helli ng the ene my

with thousands of rounds of ar tillery ". Id. a t 12 . H e no te s th a t c omb a t is define d as "a ctive fig hting in a war " and argues that he was a ctively fig hting by

firing his weapon. Id. at 1 7 (q u o t i n g M ER R I AM -W EB S TER ' S N I NTH N EW C OL L EGI AT E D I CT I O N A RY 262 (9th ed. 1990))

. He c ontends that, contra

ry to the Boa

rd' s fi n d i ng , counter fire is not a ne cessa ry element of

the definition of combat. Id

. at 1 7

. T h e appellant a lso arg ues that the B oard f ailed to provide a

n adequate statement of r easons or bases f or its conclusion that he did not e ng ag e in c ombat with the7

enemy
. Br

. at 18. He contends that the Boa rd "c ompletely ignor ed" his te stimony that h e had eng ag ed in combat with the enemy . Br . at 19 (c iting to R. at 260). He further argues that VA f

ailed to assist him by

not attempting to ver ify

his claimed in-ser

vice stre ssors (B r. at 13, 19-20) and fa iled to comply with the section 5103(a ) notice pr ovisions enacted by the VCAA (B r. at 22). The Sec reta

ry states th at h e ac ce p t s the appe llant's state ment of fa cts. Br . at 2 (c iting Appellant' s Br . at 1-12). He as s er t s that this appeal turns on whe ther the a ppellant was a

combat

ve te ra n a nd a rgue s th a t th e a

pp e lla nt h a d n ot e ng a g e d in

c omb a t be c a

us e he wa s n e ve r s ub

je c te d to enemy fire. B r. at 4-5, 12. He contends that the Board provided an a dequate statement of r easons or base s in support of its decision and t h at t h e appellant' s acc ount of his Vietnam experienc es ar e contra dicted by

officia l rec ords. B r. at 12. The Sec reta ry further contends that a

ny additional section 5103(a) notice would not assist the veter an. Br

. at 13. He also argues that if the Court should find that the VCAA require ments have not be en met, the Court should hold that this noncompli ance was nonprejudicia l error . Br . at 14.

III . A nal ys is A. A pp lic ab le La w and Re gul ations To support a c laim for ser vice c onnection for PTSD, a claimant must present e vidence of (1) a curr ent diag nosis of PTSD; (2) cre dible supporting e vidence that the claimed in- service stressor

ac tu al l y o cc u rr ed ; an d

(3 ) m ed i ca l ev i d en ce o f a ca u s al n ex u s b et we en t h e cu rr en ts y mp t o m at o l o gy
a nd the c la ime d in -s e rv ic e str e sso r. 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 04 (f ) ( 20 03 ); se e Coh e n (

Do ug las ) v . B ro wn , 10 Ve t.A pp . 1 28 , 1 38 (1 99 7) ; see al so 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diag nostic Code (DC) 9411 (2003) (Schedule of ratings for mental disorder s – PTSD). W here a cur rent diag nosis of PTSD ex ists, the

s ufficiency o f t he cla imed in-servic e stressor is presumed. See Cohe n , 10 Vet.App. at 144. Howeve r, credible evide nce that the claimed in-se rvice stressor actually occurred is also require d. 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 04 (f

). Spe c if ic a lly , 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .3 04 (f ) p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p a rt : Service connec tion f

or [P TSD] re quires medical evidenc e diag nosing the condition in acc ordanc e with [38 C.F.R.] § 4.125(a)

. . . ; a link, established by

medical e vidence , betwee n curr ent s y mptoms and an in-servic e stressor ; and

c re dib le sup po rti ng e v ide nc etha t the claim ed in -serv ice stressor occ urred . Although se rvice connec tion may be esta blished based on other

in-servic e stressor s, the following8 provisions apply

for specified in-service stressors as se t forth below: (1 ) I f t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a

b l i s h e s t h a t t h e v e t e r a n e n g a g e d in combat with the ene my

and the c laimed s t re s sor is relate d to that combat, in t h e ab s ence of c lear and convinc ing e vidence to the contra ry , and provide d that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circ umstances, c onditions, or hardships of the vete ran's se rvice , the v e te ra n's l

ay te sti mony a lon emay e

sta bli sh th eoc c urr e n ce of the claim ed in-servic e stressor

. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (empha sis added). ( Although § 3.304( f) was amende d during the pende ncy of this claim at VA, the c redible- supporting- evidenc e re quirement at iss ue her e has r emained unchang ed. See 67 Fe d. Reg

. 10,332 (Mar

. 7, 2002); 64 Fe d. Reg

. 32,807, 32,808 (June 18, 1999) .) The " eng ag ed in combat" provision of this reg ulation was der ived from 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b), w hich pr ov ide s: I n th e c a se of a ny ve te ra n w ho e ng a g e d in

c omb a t w iththe e ne my in active se rvice with a military , naval, or air org anization of

the United States during a per iod of war, ca m p aign, or e x pedition, the Secre tary shall acc ept as suf

fi ci ent proof of

service [] connec tion of any disease or

injury alleg ed to ha

ve been inc urre d in or ag g ravated by such ser

vice satisfactory

lay o r o t h er e vidence of ser vice inc ur re nc e or a g g ra vatio n o f s uc h injury

or dis e a se , if

c on sis te nt w ith the circ umstances, c onditions, or hardships o f such service, notwithstanding the f

act that there is no offic ial rec ord of suc h inc urr ence or

a g g ra vatio n in su c h s e rv ic e , a

nd , to that e nd , s ha ll resolve e very

rea sonabl e doubt in favor of the ve tera

n. Service [ ] connec tion of such injury or disease may

be re butted by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e to the contrary . The re asons for g ra nting or

denying se rvice [] connec tion in each c ase sha ll be rec orded in full.
38 U. S.C. § 1 15 4( b) ; see Ar ms v . W est , 12 Ve t.A

pp . 1 88 , 1 94 (1 99 9) ; Cohen , 10 Vet.App. at 145-46. Acc ording ly , if the vete ran e ng ag ed in c ombat and the c laimed stressor is combat relate d, the veter an' s lay

testimony

alone g en er al l y i s sufficie nt to establish the occur renc e of the claimed in- se rv ic e str e sso r. 38 C.F .R. § 3.3 04 (f ). I f, ho we ve r, the c la ime d str e sso r is n ot c omb a t r e la te d, its

occur renc e must be cor

roborated by cre dible supporting e vidence

. See Cohe n , 10 Vet.App. at 142. (citing § 3.304(f) ). When a c laim for PTSD is based on a no n co m b at s t ressor, " the noncombat vet eran 's te st im on y alo ne is in su ffi cie nt pro of o f a s tr ess or. " Mo re au v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 389, 3969

(1 99 6) . Co rr ob or a tio n d oe s n ot r e qu ir e , h ow e ve r, " that th e re be c or ro bo rat ion

of e ve ry de ta il in clu di ng th e app ell ant 's per so nal part ici pat io n i n t he i den ti fy in g proce ss ." Su oz zi v . B ro wn , 10 Ve t.A pp . 3 07 , 3 11 (1 99 7) ; see als o Pentec ost v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 124, 128 (2002) (holding that Boa rd "e rrone ously insisted that there be cor roboration of the veter an' s persona l participation" ). The B oard' s finding of noncombat status is a finding of fac t that the Court review s under a "c lear ly err oneous" standard of

revie w pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a) (4). See M oreau , 9 Vet.App. at 395. Whether a

veter an has submitted suffic ient corr oborative e vidence of his or her claimed in-servic e stressor s is also a fac tual deter mination that is reviewed unde r this standard. Pe nte c os t , 16 Vet.App. at 129. Under this def ere ntial standard, if the re is a "' plausible' basis" in the r ecor d,

" ' vie we d in its e nti re ty ' " , for the fa c tua l det e rm inatio ns of the B VA , th e Court

c a nn ot o ve rt

ur n th e m. Gi l b ert v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 4 9 , 5 2 -5 3 (1 9 9 0 ) ( qu o t i n g A n d e r s o n v
. C i t yo f B es s e m e r

City , 47 0 U .S. 56 4, 57 3- 74 (1 98 5) ); se e als o Mariano v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 305, 313 ( 2003). Moreove r, the S ecr etar

y is require d by

38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) to consider a ll information and lay and medica l evidence of record, and, under the section 5107(b) "e quipoise standard" , to find for the claimant unless " a fa ir p re p o n d er ance of the e vidence is ag ainst the claim[ant's position]." Gi lbe rt , 1 Ve t.A

pp . at 54 -5 5; se e als o Mariano , 1 7 Ve t

. Ap p
. at 3 1 3 -1 7 (r ev er s i n g t wo BV A f i n d i n gs of fa ct as " clea

rly err oneous application[ s] of the section 5107(b) e quipoise standard" ). The B oard, too, must consider a ll evidence of re cord a nd consider, and di scuss in its decision, all "pote ntially

applicable " pr ovisions of law and re g ulation. Schafra t h v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 (1991); see38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( a ); Charles v. Principi , 1 6 V e t.A pp . 3 70 , 3 73 (2 00 2) ; W

eave r v. Principi , 1 4 V e t.A

pp . 3 01 , 30 2 (2 00 1) (p e r c ur iam or de r) ; Sanden v. D erwinski , 2 Vet.App. 97, 100 (1992). The Boa

rd is also requir ed to inc lude in its decision a w ritten statement of the rea sons or base s for its finding s and conc lusions on all m at er i al i s sues of fa ct and law prese nted on the

rec ord; that statement must be ade quate to e nable a n appellant to under stand the pre cise ba sis for the Boa rd' s decision, as well as to f acilitate informed revie w in this Court. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Al lda yv . B ro wn , 7 Vet .Ap p. 517, 52 7 ( 19 95 ); Gi lbe rt , 1 Ve t.A pp . at 56 -5 7. To c omp ly

wi th t his require ment, the Board must ana ly ze the cre dibilit y

and probative value of

the evidenc e, ac count for the evidenc e that it finds persua sive or unper suasive, and pr ovide the rea sons f or its re jection of any materia l e vidence favor able to the c laimant. Se e Cal uz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 ( 1995), a ff 'd10

per curiam , 7 8 F .3 d 6 04 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 6) (t a ble ); Ga br ie lso n v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gi lbe rt , su

pr a . B. A pp lic ation o

f L aw t o Fa c ts The B oard r ecog nized that the ve tera n had bee n diag nosed with PTSD and deter mined that the ca se turned on wh et h er h e h ad either eng ag ed in combat dur ing se rvice or experienc ed a

ve ri fi a ble in- se rv ic e str e sso r. R. a t 5. I n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he a pp e lla nt " e ng a g e d in

c omb a t w ith the ene my ", the Boa

rd relied on a VA Gene ral Couns el (GC) prec edent opinion, G.C. Prec. 12- 99, and st ated that it requires that "the ve tera n have taken par

t in a fig ht or enc ounter with a military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality ." R. at 6. The Boa rd found that "the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e is ag ainst a finding that the veter an par ti ci p at ed i n co mbat with the enemy ." R. at 6. The B oard

s tate d th a t " [a ]l th o u g h th e v e te r a n w a s a s s ig n e d a c o mb a t- r e late d [m il it a r y o c c u p a ti o n a l s p e c ia lt

y ], there is no evidence that he par ticipated in combat, withi n the meaningof the Ge nera l Counsel opinion." R. at 6. Specific ally , the B oard state d:

Whil e the r ecor ds obtained by USASCR UR for the pe riod of the veter an' s assig nment to Battery C , 3rd B attalion, 18th Brig ade indicate that the unit eng ag ed in numerous dire ct combat support mis sio ns , it rece ived no c ounte rf ir e or e ne my

inc ur sio ns a t any

tim e the ve te ra n w a s p re se nt.

. . . M os t c le a rl y , while the ve te ra n' s unit was the ta

rg et of a n enemy m o rt ar a

nd rec oilless rifle attac k on 24 J une 1967, the ve tera

n was then hospitalized in J apan. R. at 6 (emphasis adde d). Ag ain re fer ring to G.C. Prec. 12-99, the Boa rd stated that " [t ]he mere f act that the veter an ser

ved as a cannone er c annot constitute a finding that the veter an eng ag ed in combat when the r ecor d co n t ains no ordin ar y ind ic a tio ns of

c omb a t in vo lve me nt. " R. at 11 (e mph a sis added)

. I n a rguin g that th e B oa

rd pr ov ide d a

n adeq uate state me nt o f r e a so ns or ba se s f or its deter mination that the appellant did not eng ag e in combat, the Sec reta ry asser ts that "a deter mination

. . . w he the r [the a

pp e lla nt] e ng a g e d in

c omb a t – w he n it

is cl e a r that he fir e d ar

til le ry bu t th e e ne my did not fire at him – would not require

. . . an exhaustive state ment of rea sons or bases." Br . at 11. He ma int a ins that th e un c on te ste d f a c t th a t th e a

pp e lla nt w a s n ot su bj ecte d to e ne my fi re is d et er m i n at i v e o f t h e c o m b at i s s u e. Br

. at 4 , 5

. T h e ap p el l an t , h o we v er , co n t en d s t h at h e d i d en gage in combat with the ene my beca use he f ired a rtillery rounds into enemy

positions. Br. at 15.11

The Co u rt co ncludes that the B oard e rre d to the extent that it s determination that the appellant ha d not en gage d i n co mbat was ba sed on the sole c riterion of the appellant' s not having

rec eived f ire fr om the enemy . The B oard e rre d insofar a s it based that deter mination on G.C. Prec. 12-99. That opinion does not state that t h e m ea n ing of the phra se " eng ag ed in combat with the

e ne my " re qu ir e s th a t a ve te ra n have re c e ive d fi re
. Th e GC op ini on de fi ne s " e ng a g e d in c omb a t w ith the ene my ", a s used in 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b), as requiring the veter an to ha ve "pe rsonally

participated in events constit u t i n g an ac tual fig ht or enc ounter with a military foe or hostile unit or i n s t ru m en t al i t y
. " G

. C

. P re c. 1 2 -9 9 at ¶ 4

. S i gn i fi ca n t l y , t h a t o p i n i o n al s o s t at edt h e f o l l o wi n g: "E vidence that the veter an par ticipated in attacking or

de fe nd inga n atta c k o f t he ene my wo uld ordinarily show that the vete ran ha d ' eng ag ed in combat,' but that ge nera l description would not be

e xha us tiv e of c ir c ums tanc e s w hic h ma y , in ind ivi du a l ca se s, be fo un d to c on sti tut e e ng a g e me nt i n
com bat ." Id . at ¶ 6 (e mphasis added) . The Court notes that the GC opinio n d re w t his conclusion from an Aug ust 17, 1932, VA Administr at o r's De ci sion No. 100, from which G .C. Prec. 12-99 qu ote d th e fo llo wi ng : " [T]he ph ra se ' inc ur re d in c omb a t,' a s u se d in the Ac t of June 30 , 1 93 2, wo uld g ener ally include 'a disabilit y incurre d as a direc t result of injury cause d by an instrumentality

of wa r wh ile [the ve te ra

n] w a s a c tua lly

e ng a g e d in

att ac kin g , d e f e n d i n g or sustaining a

n attack of

the enemy .' " G .C. Prec. 12-99 at ¶ 5 (empha sis added). I ndeed, this def

inition wa s p ar t of the backg round for

the ena ctment o f s ection 1154(b) in 1941. See G. C. Pr e c . 1 2- 99 a t ¶ 5; se e als o Arms , 12 Vet.App. at 1 9 7 (noting leg islative history for se ction 1154(b)) . This GC prece dent opinion was binding on the Boa rd, 38 U.S.C. § 7104(c); 38 C.F.R. § 14.507(b), but the Board doe s not appea r to have followed it. Although the Boa

rd cor rec tly rec og nized that, p u

rsuant to that GC opinion, the determination whether a vete ran w as i n combat must be made on a ca se-by -ca se basis, the B oard disre g arde d the ab o v e G C o p i n i o n ex p l an at i o n as t o p ar t i ci p at i o n i n "at t ac k i n g", wh i ch co u l d co v er t h e ap p el l an t 's ci rc u m s t an ce s
. T h e O R L Lfo r t h e F eb ru ary 1 t o Ap ri l 3 0 , 1 9 6 7 , qu ar t er s h o we d t h at t h e ap p el l an t 's unit had been r espons i b l e fo r s h ooting a rtillery fire into ene my

are as and that his unit killed numerous Viet Cong soldiers. R. at 526-28. Specific ally , the ORL Lnoted that during the nig ht of Fe b r u a r y 1 8

- 1 9 , B a t t e r

y C , f i r i n g i n s u p p o rto f a n o t h e r b a t t a l i o n , " r e c e i v e d

c r e d i tf o r 2 5 V [ i e t ] C [ o n g] KI A [(killed in action)]." R. at 526. That ORL L also identified how the ve tera n' s uni t was12

"[o]rga niz[ ed] for [c]om bat" in con n ec t i on with Battery A and B attery

B of his artillery

unit for various date s in Febr

uary and Apr il. R. at 526-27. The ORL L further noted t hat i n support of TF Or ego n (April 17-A

pril 30, 1967), the ar

tillery fire w as re sponsible for, amongother thing s, the following : (1) 61 structur es and huts de s t ro y ed; (2) one base c amp destroy ed; (3) two br idge s destroy ed; (4) 21 boats sunk; (5) 101 " KI A (proba ble)" ; and (6) 4 w ounded in ac tion. R. at 527. The OR L Lno te d th a t th e ve te ra n' s B a tte ry C g un s fi re d mor e tha n 1 2, 00 0 r ound s d

ur ingthi s th re e -m on th repor ting pe riod. R. at 528. The B oard' s conclusion as to whe ther the a ppellant was e ng ag ed in combat wa s thus based

on an incomplete statement of rea sons or base s. See Cohen and Gi lbe rt , both supra. A c c o r d i n g l y, the Court wi ll v a c a te the B oa

rd de c isi on a nd re mand the ma tte r t o th e B oa

rd fo r i t to re a dju dic a te whether the appe llant eng ag ed in combat. I n this re g ard, the Boa rd must a ddress the me aning of the term " attacking " a s us ed i n G. C

. Prec. 12- 99 and explain whether the evidenc e, including the appellant' s acc ount, the ORL L s and the morning repor ts, supports a deter

mination that he had bee n involved in combat. See Ga ine s v . W est , 1 1 V e t.A

pp . 3 53 , 3 59 (1 99 8) (f

ind inge rr or

wh e re , in

a na ly zingwh e the r a

pp e lla nt h a d e ng a g e d in

c omb a t, B oa

rd pa rt ly re lie d o n la c k o f a

wa rd of me da ls showing combat service but ne g lected to a ddress, inter a lia, appellant' s sworn testimony that he had

e ng a g e d in

c omb a t) ; Su oz

zi , 10 Vet.App. at 3 1 0 -11 (c oncluding that corr oboration of c laimed inservice stressor doe s not requ i re co rrobor ation of eve ry detail, including appellant' s persona l pa rt ic ipatio n in

ide nti fy ingpr oc e ss) ; se e als o Pe nte c os t , su pr a . The Court notes that, contr ary to the appellant' s asser

tions, the B oard did c onsider his sworn lay te sti mony

in i ts d e te rm inatio n th a t he ha d n ot e ng a g e d in c omb a t. T he B oa

rd c on si dere d his testimony for both the c ombat and the stre ssor-cor roboration issues. R. at 7, 9, 11. I n its discussion of w h e th e r th e a

p p e ll a n t e xp e r ie n c e d a n in

- s e r v ic e s tr e s s o r , th e B o a r d s tate d : " I n th e a b s e nce of

a pp ro pr ia te mil ita

ry c itatio ns or

oth e r e vid e nc e su ff

ic ie nt t o e stab li sh that

the ve te ra

n e ng a g e d in combat with the enemy , the B oard has also cons idered the ve teran's testim ony and all cor robative evidenc e." R. at 7 (empha sis a dded). The Boa rd noted that the appellant "pr o v i d ed fu rt h er descr iptions of his alleg ed stressors at VA examinations and in his persona l hear ing te stimony " a nd de sc ri be d s ome of

the te sti mony

fr om t he he a ri ngin M a y 19 96

. R. at 8; see R. at 421-31 (May

1996 hear ing tr anscr ipt). The B oard a lso describe d the v et era n' s descr iption of stressors in his October13

1994 statement; the Aug ust 1995 ESG letter; and VA examination re ports from January 1995, May 1995, and Nove mber 1997. R. at 7-10. B ased on that evidenc e, the Boar d conclude d that there was no independe nt evi d en ce to corrobor ate unde r § 3.304(f ) that any claimed in-se rvice stressor ha d actua lly occur red. The Boa

rd also conc luded that " based on the evidenc e, the r ecor d does not include sufficient evidenc e to establish that the veteran e ng ag ed in combat with the e nemy during service [so as] to i n v o k e [section] 1154(b) and the pre sumption for combat ser vice." R. at 9. Neve rtheless, a s discussed abo v e, a re m an d is require d based on the Boa rd' s failure to provide an adequate statement of rea sons or bases in light of the GC opinion's conclusion reg ardingthe meaning of the ter m "e ng ag ed in combat"

. I n rea djudicating on rema nd the appe llan t ' s claim for se rvice connec tion for PTSD, if the B oa rd a g a in de te rm ine s that the a pp e lla nt did no t e ng a g e in c omb a t, t he B oa rd wi ll b e re qu ir e d to

a pp ly , in te r a lia , th e pr ov isi on s o f 3 8 C. F .R. § 3. 30 4( f) a nd sp e c if ic a lly tho se pe rt a ini ngto noncombat vete rans. See M oran v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 149, 155 ( 2003). I n this reg ard, as to the appellant' s contention that VA fa iled to fulfill its duty to assist him in the verific ation of his alleg ed str e sso rs , th e Court

dis a g re e s with the B oa

rd ' s d e te rm inatio n th a t V A m a de a ll r e a so na ble e ff or ts t o verify the veter an' s claimed PTSD stressors. R. at 3. To the contra ry , the Court conclude s that the appellant wa s not advised ade quately by VA as to the ty

pes of infor

mation that may

help to verify his claimed in-se rvice stressors. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. I n particula r, at the May

1996 VA hea

ring (R. at 421-31) V A failed to a dvise the appellant that he could submit corr oboration in the for m of "buddy statements" as to some of the oc curr ence s t h at h e al leg ed we re in-se rvice stressors. See 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 03 (c)(2) ( 19 95 ) ( pr ov idi ngthat V A h e a ri ngof fi c e r m us t, i nte r a lia , s ug g e st submissi on of evidenc e that claimant "ma y have ove rlooked a

nd [t hat] would be of adva ntag e to the

c la ima nt' s p os iti on " ); Dixon v. D erwinski , 3 Ve t

. Ap p
. 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 (1 9 9 2 ) ( ci t i n g Garlejo v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 619, 620- 21 (1992) (conc luding that VA brea ched duty to a ssist appe llant by neg lecting to i nf or m hi m th a t he c ou ld a sk

fe llo w s oldiers to writ e le tte rs in s up po rt of his c la im) ); se e als o Moran , 1 7 Ve t

. Ap p
. at 1 5 9 (c i t i n g Y R v. W est , 11 Ve t.A

pp
. 39 3, 39 7- 99 (1 99 8) (c on c lud ingtha t, i n PTSD case, " cre dible supporting evidenc e" is not limit ed to se rvice depar tment r ecor ds, but c an be from any source and holding that Boa rd' s failure to discuss written statement of appellant' s sister was pr e jud ic ia l e rr or )) ; Cohen , 10 Vet.App. at 145 (noting that occu rr en ce of stressor ha d been14

established by

Boa rd' s acc eptanc e of c orrobor ative stateme nt of veter an' s comrade as to exposure to freque nt mortar and r ocket attacks). At the May 19 96 he a ri ng , th e a

pp e lla nt t e sti fi e d und e r o a th t

hat he wa s a

g un ne r w ho se un it provided a

rtillery support for infantry units stationed in the f ield and that whe n his unit m oved fr om one landing zone to another " we would have to g o in and sec ure the are a our ow n self." R. at 422. He e x plained: " I t was ver y difficult. I

mean ther e we re a

lot of, a l ot g ot killed there. We neve r had any body to go in f ront of us. We ha d to g o in by ourselves and do it." R. at 422. He fur ther testified that on J uly 24, 1967, while he was with the 25th I nfantry Division, his fireba se came under attack and 17 individuals were killed, including his first serg eant, who was the battery commander

. Ib id

. The Court notes that a buddy statemen t m ay corr oborate , for e x ample, the a ppellant' s claimed participation on J uly

24, 1967; any

doubt about his having functioned a s part of a rtillery support for inf a ntr y un its ; and

/or his state me nt c on c e rn inghis havin g be e n b low n o ff a ve hic le a nd

inj ur inghis knees ( R. at 260-61, 302-03, 422-23)

. The Court also conc ludes that there is some merit to the appellant' s argument that VA fa iled to assist him by

not attempting to verify

whether service men Prior or Ward we re c asualties during the Vie tn a m Co n f

li c t ( o n e o f h is c la im e d s tr e s s o r s ( B r
. a t 1 3 , 1 9

- 2 0 ) )

. I n it s d e c is io n , the B oard noted that the appe llant had desc ribed a n attack in J uly 1967 in which " his First Serg eant [Ward] and a Specia list [ Prior] were killed" and that his attorney had sug g ested that VA shoul d attempt to verify the deaths of these serviceme n. R. at 9. The B oard, how ever , deter mined that beca

use " the alleg ed [July 19 67 ] at ta c k it se lf

wa s n ot v e ri fi e d, ve ri fi c a tio n o f d e a ths a lle g [ed ] to b e du e to t hat atta c k is

no t ne c e ssa r

y
. " R

. a t 9

. U n d e r t h e d

u t y t o a s s i s t , t h e S e c r e t a r

y i s r e qu i r e d t o a s s i s t a c l a i ma nt t o
o b t ai n re l ev an tre co rd s
. 3 8 U. S

. C

. § 5 1 0 3 A( c) (3 ) ( re qu i ri n g S ec re t ary to ass i s tcl ai m an ti n o b t ai n i n g,
a mon g oth e r thi ng s, re c or ds " he ld by a ny F e de ra l dep a rtme nt o r a g e nc y tha t th e c la ima

nt a de qu a te ly ide nti fi e s and a

uth or ize s the Se c re tary

to o bta in" ); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (3) ( 2003). The Court

c on c lud e s th a t if

the a pp e lla nt' s a sse rt ion

re g a rd ingthe de a ths wa s th a t hi s knowl edge of the de aths

was a stressor, then V A had a

duty to assist the appellant in attempting to v er i fy t h e deaths. I f, howeve r, the a

ppel l ant' s assertion is that he witn essed the ir de a ths , th e n V A h a s an o bli g a tio n to attempt to verify the deaths only if there is evidence that the appe llant was pre sent when those de aths

a lle g e dly oc c ur re d. I n ad dit ion , the Court no te s tha t alth ou g h the a pp e lla nt c on c e de s th a t he wa s a15

patie nt at the 24 9th Ge ne ra l Hos pit a l in Japa n fr om May 18 , 196 7, to July 23 , 1 96 7 ( B r. a t 3) , it is possible that if t h e d ea t hs of servic emen Ward a nd/or Prior occ urre d on a date other than June 24 (the date identified in t he ORL L s as t he date on which the appellant' s unit was attacked) , that may indicate that the appellant' s unit was under attac k on a date not mentioned in the ORL L s and morning repor ts; if so, VA had a duty under the statute and regulation to attempt to obta in an y re l evant documents in this reg ard. A ccor dingly , if combat status is not found on rema nd, the B oard must see k to clarify the basis for this asse rted in-se rvice stressor a nd then take a

ppropriate action. On re mand , if

the B oa rd de te rm ine s th a t th e a

pp e lla nt e ng a g e d in

c omb at or

that th e re is

cre dible supporting evidence that the claimed in-servic e st ressor occur red, the n VA is to provide a

curr ent e x am i n at i o n of the a ppellant. See 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 3A ; Gree n (Victor) v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991) ( concluding that "f ulfillment of the statutory duty to assist here include s the conduc t of a thoroug h and conte mporane ous medical ex amination")

. The Court notes that the most curre nt VA examination is dated in November 1998 a nd contains n o t ati ons by the VA psy chiatrist that the appe llant's claimed stressors have not be en substantiated

. As to the claimed

s t re s s o rs , t h e e x am i n er

s t at edt h e f

o l l o wi n g: [The vetera

n' s] s tressors in Vietnam appar ently have not be en su bs tanti a te d a

nd [al ]tho ug h it

is l ike ly that he wa s in vo lve d in

so me c omb a t ac tiv iti e s, it se e ms a bit unu su a l th a t an a rt ill e ry man w ou ld have pe rsonally killed eleve n enemy soldiers unless they wer e being over[]run. I n an action of that nature, I think [ it] would probably have re su lt ed in e ith e r s ome a wa rd be ingg ive n to him

or a t le a st s ome documentation beingdiscovera ble with respe ct t o that unit's he avy combat ac tivity

. . . . When Iasked him if he dir ectly observe d [hi s 11 friends killed], he st ates that he did directly observe it. Aga in, that seems to be a

bit of either a

n exaggera t ion or a horr ible experience which should ag ain be discove rable throug h the re cords.
R. at 795. To the extent that the examining psy chiatrist is expressing a n opinion on whether the appellant' s claimed in-se rvice stressors hav e been substantiated, that is a matter for de termination by the B oard a

nd not a medica l matter. Cf. M a r ia no , 17 Vet .App . at 31 2 ( no tin g tha t it is impermissible for VA to obtain medic al opinion if a purpose for unde rtakin g s u ch additional de ve lop me nt w a s to ob ta in e vid e nc e a g a ins t a pp e lla nt' s c a se ); Moreau , 9 Ve t

. Ap p. at 396 (conc luding that c redible supporting evidence of i n-ser vice stressor cannot consist solely of medica l16

statement of VAexamining psy chiatrist that re lated vete ran' s PTSD to events experience d in service

a nd that e xpre ssl y fo un d ve te ra n' s re c itatio n of

fa c ts t o b e c re dib le ); see als o Cohen , 10 Vet.App. at 1 4 5 (c i t i n g Moreau , su

pr a ) (noting t hat opi nion by mental health profe ssional based on postservic e examination of vetera

n cannot be used to establish occ urre nce of stressor). A new V A examination would remove whateve r taint there may be fro m t h is psy chiatrist' s overr eac hing in his re port. Cf

. Colay on g v . W

est , 12 Vet.App. 524, 534- 35 (1999) ( concluding that medical opinion had be en obtained by

tainted proc ess where e ng ag ement letter from RO that led to medica l opinion contained questions that were "f

atally flawe d" in that they

sug g ested a

nswer a nd limit ed fie ld o f i n q uiry by expert, and orde ring that new medic al opinion be obtained on r emand)

. The Court notes that on rema nd the B oard' s determinations on the que stions of combat status and cor roboration of stressors (if ne eded) must be made c o n s i stent with the equipoise standar d of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), and the a ppellant' s claim is to be denied on the me rits only if the evide nce preponde rate s ag ainst the claim. See Gi lbe rt, 1 V e t

. A p p
. a t 54 ; see also Mariano , 17 Vet.App. at 313-17. IV. Conclusion On t he basi s o f

th e f o r e g o in g a n a ly s is , th e RO A , a n d th e p a rti e s ' p le a d in g s , a n d h a ving

" take [n] du e a c c ount o f t

he rule of prej ud icial e rr or " un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 72 61 (b )( 2) , th e Court wi ll

vacate the June 2002 Boa

rd decision and remand t he matter for e x peditious further de velopment and issuance of

a re adjudicate d decision supported by an ade quate state ment of re asons or ba ses, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(b), 7104(a), (d)(1); 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(c) (2), 3. 15 9, 3. 30 4( f) , 4 .1 30 , D C 94 11 ; Fletche r v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 394, 397 (1991), a ll consistent with this order and in a ccor dance with 38 U.S.C. § 7112 (as adde d by the Vete rans B enef

its Act of 2003, Pub. L . No. 108-183, § 707(b) , 117 Stat. 2651, 2673) (re quiring Secre tary to "take such a ctions

a s ma y be ne c e ssa

ry to p ro vid e fo r t

he e xpe dit iou s tr e a tme nt b y th e Board of a ny c la im that is

rema nded to the Secr etar

y by the Court") ; see Vargas- Gonzalez v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 222, 225- 30 (2001) ( holding that se ction 302 of Ve tera ns' Be nefits I mprovements Act o f 1 9 94, Pub. L . No. 10 3- 44 6, § 3 02 , 108 Sta t. 464 5, 46 58 , pre de c e sso r of se c tio n 711 2, a pp lie s to a ll e le me nts of

a c la im

rema nded by the Court or B oard) , and in ac corda nce w i t h all applicable law and r eg ulation. See Allday , 7 Vet.App. at 533-34. On remand, the VCAA will apply

. See 38 U.S.C. 5100-5103, 5103A,17

51 06 , 5 10 7; Fortuck v . Principi , 1 7 V e t.A pp . 1 73 , 1 81 (2 00 3) ; Charles , 16 Vet.App. at 3 7 4; Quartuccio v . Principi , 16 Ve t.A pp
. 18 3, 18 7 ( 20 02 ); se e als o Pelegrini v. Principi , 18 Vet.App. 112 (2004). Also, on rema

nd, the appellant will be free to submi t additional evidence and ar g ument on the remanded claims, and the B oard is re quired to consider any such evide nce a

nd argument. See Kay v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 ( 2002). A re mand by this Court o r b y t h e B oard c onfer s on an appellant the r ight to VA c ompliance with the ter ms of the re mand order and imposes on the Secr etar y a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with those terms. Se e Ste ga ll v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1998). A f

inal decision by

the B oard f

ollowing the r emand he rein orde red w ill constit ute a ne w decision that, if adve rse, may be appe aled to this Court only upon the filing of a ne w Notice of Appea l with the Court not later than 120 day s afte r t he date on which noti ce of the Board' s new final decision is mailed to the appellant. Se e Ma rsh v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 468, 472 ( 1998). VACATED A

ND REMANDED

.