UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

N O . 99-754
D AVI D C. M OR AN , 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
(Argued Apr il 22, 2003 Decided June 20, 2003 )

Kenneth M. Carpenter , o f T op e ka , K ans a s, fo r t he a pp e lla nt.
Gar y E. O' Connor , with whom Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Ed war d V . Ca ssi dy , J r. , Ac tin g De puty

As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l, wer e on the plea dings, a ll of Washington, D.C., for the appellee

. Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY and STEI NB ERG, J

ud ge s. KRAMER, Chief Judge , filed the opinion o f t he Court. STEI NB ERG, Judge , filed an op ini on c on c ur ri ngin p a rt

. KRAMER, Chief Judge : The appe llant appea ls, through c ounsel, a January 29, 1999, Boa

rd of Ve tera ns' Appeals (Boa

rd or B VA) de cision that denied his claim for service connec tion for post-traumatic s t ress disorder (PTSD). Recor d (R.) at 2, 3-4, 5. T he appe llant and the Secr etar y have fi le d b ri e fs , a

nd the ap pe lla

nt h a s f ile d a re ply br ie f. Th e pa

rt ie s a lso have fi le d, purs ua nt t o two Court orders, supplemental pleading s addre ssing the impac t on this appeal of the e nactment of the V e t e r a ns Cl a i m s Ass i s t a nc e Act o f 20 00 , Pu b. L

. No. 10 6- 47 5, 11 4 S t a t . 20 96 ( V CA A) , a nd
thi s Cou r t ' s o p i ni o n i n Hollid ay v. Pr inc ipi , 1 4 V et.A pp . 2 8 0 (2 0 0 1 ). I n addition, the Court ordere d the par ties to address two que stions concer ning the validity

of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)

. I n response , the appellant and the S ecr etar y have f iled supplemental brief

s, and the a

ppellant has filed a

supplemental reply brief. T his appea l is ti mely , and the Court ha s jurisdiction pur suant to 38 U .S.C. §§ 7252(a)2

and 7266(a ). For the rea sons that f ollow, the Court w ill vac ate the B oard' s decision and r emand the matter for rea djudication consistent with this opi nion.

I. Bac kgr ound The a ppellant serve d on active duty from January

1969 to November

1970, including se rvice in Vietnam. R. at 12, 223. His service person n el re co rd s ref lect, inter a lia, that his mil itary

oc c up a tio na l sp e c ia lty

(M OS) wa s c oo k ( R. at 12 , 2 22 ) a nd that, duri nghis tou

r o f d uty in V ie tna m, he wa s assig ned to Comp any A, 20th Eng ineer

Battalion (R. at 223, 225). In J anuar y 1983, the appellant submitted an a

pplication for VAcompensation or pension benef its for, inter alia, " nerve s." R. at 55 -5 8; see R. at 62-63 (dischar g e summary for pr ivate hospitalization from Dece mber 12, 1982, to J anuar y 14, 1983; phy sician diag nosed appe llant with dy sthy mic disorder in schizoid personality );

se e als o R. at 19 0- 96 (f

ro m D e c e mbe r 1 98 2 to Oc tob e r 1 98 3, appel lant s e e n at se c on d p ri vate hospital complaining of

anxiety , dep re s s i o n , nervousne ss, and trouble slee ping) . On Marc h 10, 1983, the appe llant was af forde d a VA psy chiatric examination; t he examiner diag nosed the appellant a s h a

v inga dy sthy

mic disorder by

history with predominant compone nts (g astrointestinal). R. at 76 -7 7; see R. at 68 (M arc h 198 3 VA me dic a l ce rt if ic a te lis tin g dia g no sis of

pr ob a ble c hr on ic depre ssive disorder)

. A VA reg ional office (RO), in a n April 15, 1983, decision , d en i ed the appellant' s claim for service connec tion for a ne rvous disorder . R. at 79-80. The a ppellant did not appea l that RO decision. On September

12, 1994, the appe llant s u b m i t t ed an application for VA c ompensation or pe ns ion be ne fi ts fo r PTSD

. R. at 93 -9 6; see R. at 87-89 (a

ppellant hospitaliz ed in VA hospital fr om Aug ust 22, 1994, to S eptember 19, 1994; examiner diag nosed appellant as having P TSD and stated in add end um that

PTSD wa s c on sid e re d to be re su lt o f s tr e ss i nc ur re d d ur ingtou r o f d uty in Vi e tna m) , 98- 12 6 (pr og re ss not e s f ro m ho sp ita lizatio n) ; se e als o R. at 134- 39, 141-47, 259-76. An October 17, 1994, VA psy cholog ical ev al u at ion report r efle cts that the appe llant relate d to the examiner that, duringhis service in Vietnam, he ha d seen c ombat and had spe nt most of his time not

as a c ook but as a guard for an eng ineer ing battalion that built roads and bridg es. R . at 128-31. The examiner diag nosed the a

ppellant as having PTSD. R. at 131. Fr om J anuar y 2, 1995, to J anuar

y 11, 19 95 , th e a

pp e lla nt w a s h os pit a lize d in a

VAme dic a l c e nte r. R. at 55 6- 58 ; see R. at 158, 160-61,3

16 3- 74 . A s a

re su lt o f t hat hosp ita lizatio n, the a

pp e lla nt wa s dia g no se d as havin g , inte r a lia , PT SD (A xis I ) and bo rd e rl ine tr a its (A xis I I ). R. a t 55 6; see R. at 17 5- 77 , 1 99 -2 04 , 2 28 -3 4 ( pr og re ss n ote s, dated f rom Dec ember

1994 to September 1995, re lating to a ppellant' s co u n s eli ng sessions at VA Mental He alth Clini c). Th e RO , in a F e br

ua ry 19 95 le tte r to the a

pp e lla nt, re qu e ste d that he c omp le te and re tur n to the RO an e nclosed PTSD stressor ve rification form. R. at 183. Subsequently , on Marc h 23, 1995, the appe llant underwe nt a VA PTSD examination. R. at 206-09. I n the re port of that examination, the e xa mi n e r n o te d th a t th e a p p e ll an t h a d r e late d th a t, d u r in g h is to u r o f d

u ty in Vietnam, he ha d b e e na c o o k m o s t o f t h e t i m e an d h a d t o " f i l l i n i nf i e l d o p e r a t i o n s " an d

o ng u ar d d u t y o c c a s i o n a l l y; the examiner fur

ther noted that the appellant ha d related that " his only combat duty

was to protec t the unit on g uard duty and other such deta ils." R. at 207. The e x aminer dia g nosed the a ppellant as having , inter alia, dy sthy

mia, chronic , and history of PTSD (Axi s I ) and pe rsonality disorder, not otherwise spe cified, w ith borderline a nd antisocial traits (Axis I I ). R. at 209. The examiner opined that the appe llant's sy

mptomatology

was not sig nificant for PTSD a nd that his sy

mptomatology

was
mu ch more su g g e sti ve of a c hr on ic dy sthy

mic c on dit ion

c ou ple d w ith a sig nif ic ant p e rs on a lity disorder. The examiner further opined t hat he considere d the Ax is I I patholog y to be a sig nificant part of the a

ppellant' s curr ent manife stations and sy mptoms. Id

. I n an Apr il 17, 1995, decision, the R O d et erm i n edt h at n ew an d m at er i al ev i d en ce h adn o tb ee ns u b m i t t edt o re o p en t h e ap p el l an t 's claim for se rvice connec tion for a nervous condition, to include PTSD. R. at 217-19. The a ppellant did not appeal that de cision. I n October

1996, the appe llant submit ted a s t ressor a ffidavit. In that aff idavit, he asser

ted that (1) in March 1970, while his unit was assig ned duties at " Camp Enari, I ICorps are a of operations," he fre quently was subjected to mor tar fire over approximately a two-w eek pe riod, and (2) r eg ardle ss of wher e his unit was stationed in Vietnam, the unit was subjec ted nig htly to sniper fire a nd he par ticularly reme mbere d the sniper fire that occur red when the unit was stationed at An Kh e . R. a t 37 7; see R. at 566 (durin g counseling session, re lating e x perie nces of mortar f ire a nd sniper fire in Vietnam). In a De cembe r 1996 dec ision, the RO ag ain determined that new a nd

mate ri a l e vid e nc e ha d no t be e n su bmi tte d to r e op e n th e a

pp e lla nt' s PT SD- se rv ic e -c onne c tio n c la im. R. at 381-83. The appellant timely appea led that RO decision (R. at 385, 397), a nd the RO issued4

to him a Statement of the Case (SOC) (R. at 390-95). The Boa rd, in a J un e 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 , d ec i sion,

co n cl u d edt h at n ew an d m at e r i a l e v i d en ce h adb ee ns u b m i t t edt o re o p en t h e ap p el l an t 's service -conne ction claim and r emande d that claim to the RO for f urther de velopment. R. at 399-409. Pursuant to that remand, the RO, in October 1997, se nt a letter to the U .S. Armed Service s Center f or Resea rch of Unit Records (U SASC RUR) re questing supportive evidenc e for the appellant' s PTSD claim, s pecif ically verific ation of his asser

ted stressors. R. at 536. In April 1998, USASCRUR responde d to that RO request with ( 1 ) a letter in which the direc tor of USASCRUR stated, i n ter a lia, that, afte r extensive rese arc h of ava ilable U.S. Army combat unit rec ords for the appellant' s assig ned unit and its highe r hea dquarte rs, USASCRUR was unab l e to ver ify

the appellant' s listed stressors (R. at 579) a nd (2) c opies of " Oper ational Repo rt s - L es s o ns L eane d" submitt ed by

the appe llant's unit l i s t i n g the unit's loc ations, missi ons, operations, and signific ant activities duringhis tour of duty in Vietnam (R. at 580-613)

. I n J une 1998, also pursua

nt to the J une 1997 B VA re mand, the appe llant was af forde d a VA mental disorder s examina t i o n
. R

. at 617-21. The r eport of that examination reflects that the appellant ha d related to the examiner, inter alia, a history of " rec ollections of combat e x perie nces." R. at 618. T h e examiner diag nosed the a ppellant as having, inter

alia, obsessive- compulsive disorder and dy sthy

m i a (Ax is I ) and pe rsonality disorder, not other

wise spec ified, with border line features (A xis I I ). R. at 61 9- 20 . T he e xami ne r opi ne d th a t th e a pp e lla nt " d[id ] not

pr e se nt i n th e mann e r i n which one would normally expect to see someone wit h PTSD." R. at 620. He further opine d that the primary diag nosis, ba sed on the appellant' s sy mptoms, wa s border line persona lity disorder a

nd that such sy

mptomatology

was not the ty

pe t hat ar ose fr om mili tary service , rathe r it predated milit ary servic e. R

. at 6 2 0 -21. The e x aminer state d that, on the basis of his interviewwith the appellant a

nd his revie w of the a

ppellant' s medical re cord, the appellant doe s not have PTSD. R. at 621. He finally stated that he does not be lieve that the sy mptoms of the appellant' s o b s es s ivec omp uls ive dis or de r a

nd bo rd e rl ine pe rs on a lity

re late d t o the a

pp e lla nt' s mi lit ary

se rv ic e be c a

us e there was no e vi d ence of re cord that the sy mptomatology

arose from military

experience

. Id

. Sub se qu e ntl y , o n July

27 , 1 99 8, the RO iss ue d to the a pp e lla nt a Sup pl eme nta l SO C in

wh ic h h is claim for se rvice connec tion for PTSD was denied. R. at 659-60.5

I n th e J an u ar y

29, 1999, Boa

rd dec ision on appeal, the B VA found, inter alia, that the appellant' s service personne l r ecor ds and his DD214 re flec t that he had se rved in Vie tnam and that his MO S wa s c oo k b ut d o n ot r e fl e c t th a t he wa s awa rd e d a ny me da ls i nd ic a tin g e xpos ur e to c omb a t. R. at 3. The B oard f

urther f ound that the appe llant had submitted a stressor a ffidavit as to mortar fire a nd sniper fire but that US AS C R UR rec ords do not reve al that his unit had experience d any

mor tar o r s nip e r f

ir e and that, the re fo re , USA SCRU R wa s no t a ble to v e ri fy

his a sse rt e d s tr e sso rs
. R. at 3-4. The Boa

rd deter mined that the rec ord contains no evidenc e to cor roborate either

combat

se rv ic e or the in- se rv ic e str e sso rs c la ime d b y the a pp e lla nt. R. at 2, 4. Th e B oa

rd c on c lud e d th a t, there fore , s er v i ce co nnection for PTSD was not warr anted be cause any such disorder

was not incurre d in service and denie d the appe llant's c laim. R. at 2, 4, 5. The a ppellant timely

appea led the January

1999 Boa rd dec ision to t his Court. Or al ar g ument befor e the instant pane l was hea rd on April 22, 2003.

II. Ana lys is A. VCAA Subsequent to the Boa

rd dec ision on appeal, Cong ress e nacte d t h e VC AA. T h e VCAA, in te r a li a , ame nd ed 3 8 U. S .C . § 51 03 ("Not ice to cla im ant s of requ ir ed in for mat io n andevi den ce")

and a dd e d 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 03 A ( " Duty to a ssi st c la ima

nts " ). VC AA§ 3 (a ). I n th is r e g ard , th e U. S. Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit (F eder al C ircuit) has issued two decisions addre ssing the retroa ctive applicability of som e of the provisi ons of the VCAA. See Bernk lau v. Princi pi , 291 F. 3d 795 , 803 - 06 ( Fe d. C i r . 200 2) ; Dyment v. Princi pi , 287 F. 3d 1 377 , 138 5 ( Fe d. C i r . 200 2 ). I n b oth of tho se op ini on s, " the F e de ra l C ir cui t held th a t th e se c tio ns of the VC AAc od if

ie d at 38 U. S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A, conce rning notice and assistance to be provided to c laimants by VA, ar e
no t r e tr oa c tiv e ly

a pp lic a ble to pr oc e e din g s that we re c omp le te be fo re VAand we re on a pp e a l to thi s Co urt or th e Feder al C ir cui t w hen th e VC AA w as en act ed. " Stephens v . Principi , 16 Vet.App. 191, 1 9 3 (2 0 0 2 ) ( p er

cu ri am o rd er ) ( ci t i n g Bernklau , 29 1 F .3 d a t 80 3- 06 ). B e c a us e the a pp e lla nt' s PT SD claim was " on appea l to this Court" at the time that Congre ss enac ted the VCAA, th e notice a nd assistance provisions of the VCAA are inapplicable to this proce eding

. Stephens , su pra . T he Court , there fore , will procee d to the merits of the a ppellant' s arguments.6 B. C om batSt at us T h e B o a rd is re q u ir e d to p ro v id e a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t o f th e re a s o n s o r b a s e s fo r i ts f i ndi ngs and c onc l us i ons on a l l m at er i al i s s ue s of f ac t and l aw pr es ent ed on t he r ec or d; the

s ta te m e n t m u s t b e a d e q u a te to e n a b le a c la im a n t to u n d e rs ta n d th e p re c is e b a s is fo r th e B o a rd 's d ec isio n , as w ell a s to fac ilit ate re v iew in th is C o u rt . See 3 8 U .S .C . § 7 1 0 4 (a), (d)(1 ); Charles v. Principi , 1 6 V et.A pp . 3 7 0 , 3 7 3 (2 0 0 2 ); Weaver v. Pr i nci pi , 14 V et . A pp. 301, 302 (2001) ( per

cu riam o rde r); Al lda y v. Br own , 7 V et.A pp . 5 1 7 , 5 2 7 (1 9 9 5 ); Gilb er t v. D er winski , 1 V et . A pp . 49, 57 ( 19 90 )

. To c o m p l y wi th t hi s r e q ui r e m e nt , t he B oar d m us t a na l y z e the c r e d i bi l i t

y a nd pr obat i ve valu e o f the ev i dence, acc oun t f or t he evi dence that

i t f i nd s t o be per suas i ve or unpe r s ua s i ve , and pr ov i de the r ea s ons f or i t s r ej ec t i on of any m at er i al ev i de nce f av or ab l e t o t

he cla im an t . See Ca luz a v. Br own , 7 V e t.A p p . 4 9 8 , 5 0 6 ( 1 9 9 5 ) , aff'd per curiam , 78 F

. 3d 6 04 ( Fe d. C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (t ab le); Gab r iels on v. Br own , 7 V et.A pp . 3 6 , 3 9 -40 (1 9 9 4 ); Gilbert , supra . In th e in stan t

ca se , as th e a pp ella n t

co n t en d s, t

h e B o ard fail e d to d iscu ss a d eq u ately whe the r he ha d s e r

v e d i n c o m ba t . App e l l a nt ' s Br i e f ( Br

. ) a t 6- 11

. I n thi s r e g a r d , i n c o nc l ud i ng tha t the a pp el l ant

ha d not s er ve d i n co m ba t , the BV A r el i ed up on hi s M O S of c oo k a nd the abse nce of

any not at i on eit

her i n h i s s er

vi ce pe r sonn el r ecor ds or on hi s D D 214 t hat he had b e e n a w a rd e d a n y m e d a ls o r c o m m e n d a tio n s in d ic a tin g th a t h e h a d b e e n e x p o s e d to c o m b a t. R

. at 3. Th e B oar d, how ever , com pl et el y f ai l ed t o di sc uss the appel l ant ' s a ss er t i ons that he had

en g ag ed in co m b at. R . at 3-4 ; see R. a t 12 8 ( O c t o be r 19 94 V A ps y c ho l o g i c a l r e p o r t r e f l e c t i ng th a t a p p e l l a n t h a d r e l a t e d th a t h e h a d s e e n c o mb a t wh i l e i n Vi e t n a m) , 2 0 6
- 0 7 ( M a r c h 1 9 9 5 VA PTS D e x a m i na t i o n r e p o r t i nd i c a t i ng tha t a p p e l l a nt ha d d e s c r i be d hi s c o m ba t d ut y a s p r o t e c t i ng
un i t t o w hic h he w as as si gned), 566 ( dur i ng counsel i ng s ess i on, r el at i ng expe r i ences of m or t ar f i r e and snipe r f

i r e) , 618 (J un e 1998 V A m ent al di sor ders exam i nat i on rep or t r ef l ect i ng t hat ap pe llan t h ad related th at h e e x pe rien ce d rec o llection s o f com b at ex pe rien ce s); Gai nes v. Wes t , 11 V et . A pp. 353, 359 ( 1998) (f i nd i ng er r or w her e, i n an al y z i ng w hether appe l l ant had engaged i n com bat , B oar d par tl y r el i ed on la ck of aw ar d of m edal s show i ng com bat ser vi ce but negle ct ed
to a d d re s s , in t er a lia, app ella n t ' s sw o rn t es t im o n y th at h e h ad en g ag ed in co m b at); C o he n v. Br own , 1 0 V et.A pp . 1 2 8 , 1 4 5 -46 (1 9 9 7 ) (co n clu d in g , as t o co m b at st atu s, t h at B o ard erred w h ere it failed t o m ak e fin d in g as t o cre d ib ilit y o f app ella n t ' s sw o rn t es t im o n y d es crib in g h is d u t ies in V ie tn a m ; f

u rth e r s ta tin g th a t 3 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 1 5 4 (b ) d o es n o t r e q u i re BV A t o ac ce p tap p el l an t 's7

asser tion that he eng ag ed in combat wi t h enemy and that such

st at us i s det er m i ned b as ed on

ev id en ce o f r ec o rd in ea ch ca se ); D izo gl io v. Br own , 9 V et.A pp . 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 (1 9 9 6 ) (en g ag em en t in

co m b at is n o t n ec es sa ril y d eterm in ed sim ply b y referen ce t o ex isten ce o r n o n ex isten ce o f certain

a wa r d s o r M O Ss )

. I n a d d i t i o n, i t i s no t e nt i r e l y c l e a r whe the r the Boar d w as r eq ui r i ng

co rrob o rati o n o f th e ap pe llan t ' s st atem en t s as t o h is co m b at se rvic e. See R. a t 4 ( BV A st a t i ng th a t " re c o r d c o n t a i n s n o c o rr o b o ra tio n o f c o m b a t s e rv ic e " ) . S u c h a b a s e li n e re q u ir e m e n t, how ever , w hic h has no st at ut or y or r egul at or

y basi s, i s not appr opr i at e. Fur ther , the B V A f ai l ed
t o d iscu ss th e a pp lication o f t h e b en efit-o f-the -do u b t

rule

. See 3 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 0 7 (b ); Gai nes , 1 1 V et.A pp . at 35 9

. Th e Cou r t

thu s c o nc l ud e s tha t the Boa r d f a i l e d t o c o ns i d e r a d e q ua t e l y " a l l e v i d e nc e a nd

m at er i al of

r ecor d and appl i cabl e pr ovi si ons of law " and t o pr ovi de an adequat e st at em ent of

rea so n s o r ba se s for it s d ec isio n . 3 8 U .S .C . § 7 1 0 4 (a), (d)(1 ); see Charles, Weaver, Allday, Caluza, Gab r iels on, and Gilbert , all supra . Acc ording ly , t h e C o u rt will vacate the January 1999 Boa

rd decision and w ill remand the a ppellant' s PTSD claim for re adjudication. Gi v en t h i s d i s p o s i t i o nas t o t h e c o mb at -s t at u s issue, the Cou rt n ee d n o tad dre s s t h e ap p el l an t 's

rema ining arguments as to the nee d for r emand be cause he has not de monstrated that he w ould be prejudice d by

a re mand of his PTSD claim without consideration of those a ssertions of VA e rror beca use the a sserted e rror s could likely be prope rly

raised or eventua lly

reme died on re mand to the Boa rd. See F letcher v. De rwinski , 1 Vet

. Ap p
. 394, 397 (1991) ( rema nd is meant to entail critica l examination of justi fication for dec ision; C ourt expects that BV A will ree x amine e v id ence of re cord, seek a ny other ne cessa

ry evidenc e, and issue timely , well-s u p p orted de cision). On re mand, the

a pp e lla nt i s f re e to s ub mit

a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e and argume nt, inc lud ing the argume nts ra ise d in his op e nin g and re ply br ie f to thi s Co ur t, i n a c c or da

nc e wi thKutscherousky v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 369, 372-73 (1999) (per

curiam order)

. See Kay

v. Principi , 16 Ve t.A

pp
. 52 9, 53 4 ( 20 02 ) ( statin g , in c a se wher e Court re manded c laim and dec lined to addre ss appellant' s additiona l ar gu m ents as to BV A

e rr or , th a t, o n reman d, app ell ant i s f re e to r a ise su c h a

rgume nts to B oa

rd and B oa rd mus t a dd re ss those arguments).

C
. V a li di t y o f 3 8 C
. F . R . § 3
. 3 0 4 ( f)8

I n rea djudicating on rema nd the appe llant's PTSD claim, if the B oard a g ain deter mines that the a pp e lla nt did no t e ng a g e in c omb a t, the B VA wo uld be re qu ir e d to a

pp ly , in te r a lia , 3 8 C. F .R. § 3.304(f) , specific ally

the re quirements per

taining to non- combat vete rans. There fo re, the Court will address the a

ppellant' s contention that the cr edible-suppor ting- evidenc e r eq u i reme nt of § 3.304(f) rende rs the regulation inva lid. See Ap pellant' s Br . at 15-22; Appe llant's Supplementa l (Supp.) B r. at 2-12. I n this reg ard, the Fe dera l Circuit rece ntly issued an opinion uphold i n g t h e v alidity of § 3.304(f) and deny

ing a petition for re view of that reg ulat i o n i n s o fa r as § 3.304(f ) provides that evidenc e other

than the vete ran' s service rec ords may corr oborate that veter an' s acc ount of the

occur renc e of a

n in-servic e stressor i n PTSD-service -conne ction claims based upon a persona l

as sault. Nat 'l O rg . o

f V e te ra ns ' Ad

v oc ate s, In c . v . S

e c 'y o f V e te ra ns Af fai rs ,

_ _ F

. 3 d

_ _ ,

_ _ , No. 02 -7 34 6, sli p o p. a t 1 ( F e d. Cir . M ay 14 , 2 00 3) ; see 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 04 (f )( 3) (2 00 2) ; Po st- Tr a

umatic Stress Disorder Claims Ba sed on Personal Assault, 67 Fe d. Reg

. 10,330, 10,330, 10,332 (Mar ch 7, 2 0 0 2 ). In a d d r e s s i n g t h e c h al l en ge t o § 3

. 3 0 4 (f ), t h e F ed er al C i rc u i td es cr i b edt h e p et i t i o n er 's

c re dib le -s up po rt ing -e vid e nc e argume nt a s be ing that no n- c omb a t- re late d- PTSD c la ima nt s m ust satisfy an evide ntiary

require ment not imposed upon combat-re lated-PTSD claimants a nd that ad d itional evidentiary

require ment is not consistent with 38 U.S .C. §§ 1154(a) a nd 5107(b). S

ee Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates, I nc. , __ F.3d at __, slip op. at 7-8, 9. Her e, the a

ppellant ar g ues that the § 3.304(f ) cr edible-suppor

ting- evidenc e re quirement imp e rm iss ibl y

pla c e s a hig he r e vid e nti ary

burd e n f or es tab lis hin g e nti tle me nt t o V A d isa bil ity benef its on claimants wit h PTSD than on claimants with other disabilities and that any such hig her evidenti ar y b u rden conflicts with g overninglaw, spec ifically sections 1154(a ) and 5107( b). Ap pe lla nt' s Su pp . B r. a t 2- 5, 8- 12

. Th is argume nt, no t havin g be e n ra ise d to t he F e de ra l Cir c uit , w ill be addr essed by

the Court. For

the re asons that follow, the Court will up h o l d t h e validity of the contested r egulatory

require ment as applied to a ll PTS D claims. Withre sp e c t to the a

uth or ity and dutie s o f t he S ecret ary , 3 8 U .S. C. § 50 1 p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art : (a) [t ]he Sec reta ry has authority to pr escr ibe all rules and r egulations which are nece ssary

or appropriate to carr

y out the laws administere d by the Depa rtment [of Veter ans Aff

airs] and are consistent with those laws, including––9 (1) r egulations with respec t to the nature and ex tent of proof and e vid e nc e and

the me tho d o f t a kin gand fu rn ish ing the m in

or de r t o e sta

bli sh the ri g ht t o b e ne fi ts und e r s uc h la ws
. 38 U.S.C. § 501(a)(1) . The Sec reta ry contends that, pursua

nt to section 501 , h e has promulgated 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) , which provide s in pertinent par t that [s] ervic e connec tion f

or [P TSD] re quires medical evidenc e diag nosing the condition i n ac co rd ance with [ 38 C.F.R.] § 4.125(a) . . . ; a link, established by medical evidenc e, betwe en cur

rent sy mptoms and an in-serv i ce stressor; and c re dib le supporting evidencethat the claimed in- service stressor oc curr ed. Althoug h service connec tion may

be esta blished based on other in-servic e stressor s, the following pr ov isi on s a

pp ly fo r s pe c if

ie d in -s e rv ic e str e sso rs a s se t f or th b e low : (1) I f th e e v id e n c e e s ta

b li s h e s th a t th e v e te r an e n g a g e d in c o mb a t w ith the enemy and the c laimed stressor is re lated to that combat, in the a bsence of cle ar a

nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e to t he c ontr ary , a

nd pr ov ide d th a t th e c la ime d s tr e sso r i s consistent with the circ umstances, c onditions, or hardships of the vete ran' s service , t h e v et eran' s lay

testimony

alone may

establish the occ urre nce of the claimed in-servic e stressor

. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2002) (e m p h as i s added) . (Althoug h § 3.304(f) was amended dur ing the pendenc y o f t h i s claim, the cr edible-suppor ting- evidenc e re quirement at issue here has re mained unchang ed. See P o s t -T ra u m at i c S t re s s Di s o rd er C l ai m s Ba s edo nP er s o n al As s au l t , 6 7 F e d

. R eg. at 10,332; Direc t Service Connec tion (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ), 64 Fe d. Reg

. 32,807, 32,808 (June 18, 1999).) Specifica lly and as is r eleva nt he re, the Secre tary contends that th e § 3 .304(f) requirem en t of " cre dible supporting e vidence " e x plicates the " nature and extent of proof a nd evidenc e" nece ssary

to establish the in-servic e occ urre nce of a stressor (s) a

nd that as s u ch the regulation is a valid exercise of his rulemakingauthority under se ction 501. Secre tary ' s Supp. Br. at 2, 7, 11-12, 36. "The s tar ti ng po in t i n i nt e r p r eti ng a st atu te i s i ts lan guage." Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Sh ala la , 508 U.S. 402, 409 (1993). W hen thi s Court revie ws de novo the Sec reta ry ' s interpre tation of a statute, the first question is alway s "whether Congr ess has dire ctly spoken to the prec ise question at i ss ue. " Chevron , U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 4 67 U. S. 8 37 , 8 42 (1 98 4) ; see 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( a )( 1) (s c op e of re vie w) ; Tril le

s v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 314, 321 (2000) (e n banc)

.

" If t h e i n t e n to f

C o n g r e s s i s c l e ar , t h a t i s t h e e n d o f t h e m a t t e r ; f

o r t h e c o u rt , a s w e l l a s t h e a g e n c y,
mu st give effect to th e un amb iguo us ly ex pres sedin ten t o f C on gress ." Chevron , 467 U.S. at 842-43.10

I f, howe ver, a

statute is silent as to the matter at issue, " the questi o n fo r t h e co urt is whether the agency 's ans wer i s b asedon a permi ss ib le c on st ruct io n o f t he s tat ut e." Chevron , 467 U.S. at 843.

"' The powe r of a

n administrative ag ency

to administer a congressionally cre ated . . . pr og ram
ne c e ssa ri ly re qu ir e s the fo rm

ulatio n of po lic y and the makin g of

ru le s to fi ll a

ny g a p le ft , im pli c itl y
or ex pl ici tl y , by Co ngres s. '" Chevron , 4 6 7 U. S

. at 8 4 3 (q u o t i n g Mo rto n v . R uiz , 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974))

. I n s e c tio n 5 01 (a )( 1) , Co ng re ss c le arl y g a ve the Se c re tary the e xplic it a

uth or ity to p ro mul g a te regulations dealing with the "nature a nd extent of proof and evidence" nece ssary to establish, inter al i a, s erv i ce co n n ec t i o nfo r P T S D. T h e q u es t i o nfo r t h e C o u rt , t h er ef o re , i s wh et h er

t h e S ec re t ary 's interpre tation of his expl icitly deleg ated a

uthority as expressed in § 3.304(f) , which interpr etation g ener ally is g iven controlli ng weig ht, is arbitra ry , capr icious, an abuse of di scre tion, or otherw ise not in acc ordanc e with law. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( a )( 3) (A ); Chevron , 467 U.S. at 844. Withre sp e c t to th e a

pp e lla nt' s c on te nti on

that § 3 .3 04 (f

) i s inva lid

be c a us e its

cre dible -s upporting -evide nce r equire ment place s a hig her e videntiary burden f

or establishing entitlement to disabilit y

benef its on P TSD claimants than on other VA benef its c laimants and that such diffe ring evidentiar

y burdens a

re disallowe d, t h at arg ument is unavailing . I n this reg ard, f or
ov e r e ig hty -f

ive y e a rs , th e Se c re tary

(o r h is p os iti on a l pr e de c e sso rs ) h a s b e e n e mpo we re d to pr omu lg a te re g ulatio ns g ov e rn ingthe " natur e and e xten t of the pr oo fs and

e vid e nce" ne c e ssa

ry to establish entitlement to V A disability benef its. See An Act of October 6, 1917, ch. 105, art. I , sec. 2, § 1 3, 40 Stat. 3 98 , 3 99 ; se e als o 38 U.S.C. § 210(c) (1958) ; World W ar V eter ans' Act, 1924, ch. 320, title I , sec. 5, 43 Stat. 607, 608-09. Pursuant to that authorization, the Secreta ry promulg ated

sever al re g ulations dealing with various evidentiar y burdens, a s to both VA benef its in g ener al and

c la ims ba se d o n spe c if

ic dis a bil iti e s, that mu st b e satis fi e d in or de r f or a c la ima nt t o e sta bli shbe ne fi t entitlement. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.157(b)( 2) (1964) (re quiring , in ce rtain incre ased- ratingand reope ning c ases, that e vidence from private phy sician or lay man be verifie d by

officia l examination prior to awa

rd of be nefits), 3.203 (1964) (re quiring , in cer tain instances, se rvi ce depar tment verific a ti o no f

s e r v ic e ) , 3

. 3 1 1 b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( ii ) ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( in c la im b a s e d o ne xp o s u r e to io n iz in g r a d iation, detailing when dose estimate i s considere d to be from "' cre dible source ' ") , 3.350(a) (5) (1964) (for specia l monthly

compensation rating for de afne ss, examination m u s t b e held at VA authorized11

audiolog y clinic), 3.374(c) (1964) (re quiring confirmation of private phy sician' s diag nosis of active pulmonary

tuberc ulosis). Subsequent l y , in 1991, Congre ss ree nacte d without substantive chang e the pr ovision authorizing the Sec reta

ry to p r omulgate evidentiar

y regulations. SeeDepa

rtment of Ve tera

ns Affa irs Codification Act, Pub. L

. No. 102-83, sec. 2(a) , § 501, 105 Stat. 378, 386 (1991). At the time of that

ree n ac t m en t , VA utiliz ed, inter a lia, the evidentiar y regulations cited in the prec edingpara g raph. See38 C. F.R

. §§ 3. 15 7( b) (2 ), 3. 20 3( c ), 3. 31 1b (a )( 3) (i i) , 3 .3 50 (a )( 5) , 3 .3 74 (c ) ( 19 90 ). Th e re is, howeve r, no indication that Congr ess disag ree d with or disapproved of the Secr etar

y ' s interpre tation of his statutory

authority , in that Congre ss took no action , at that time, to discontinue or alter the Secre tary ' s interpre tive actions. Se e Lin da hl v. Of fic e of P e rs. Mg

mt

. , 470 U.S. 768, 783 n.15 (1985) (Cong ress is pre sumed to be awa re of administrative or judicia l interpretation of statute and to adopt that interpre tation when it ree nacts statute without chang e). In this reg ard, when Cong ress de sired to a lter the Secre tary ' s evidentiar y regulations, Cong ress did so expli citly

. Specific al l y , i n 1 994, Congr ess ena cted 38 U.S.C. § 5125 to eliminate the 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b)( 2) require ment that, prior to an awa rd of VA b enef

its, a private phy sician' s medical-e x amination repor t be ver ified by

an officia l VA examination report. See Veter ans' Be nefits I mprovements Act of 1994, Pub. L . No. 103- 44 6, § 3 01 (b ), 10 8 St a t. 4 64 5, 46 58 (V B I A) ; se e als o 38 U.S.C. § 5125; 38 C .F.R. § 3.1 5 7 (b)( 2) (1995). Her e, the evidentiar y regulation at i ssue, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) , was promulg ated in 1993. See Direc t Service Connec tion (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder ), 58 Fe d. Reg . 29,109, 29,109-10 (Ma y 19, 1993) (statingthat VA was amending its a djudication regulations to establish extent of evidence require d to establish service connec tion for PTSD; noti ng that, when c omments were invited on proposed r egulation, America n Psy chiatric A s s o c ia

ti o n r e p r e s e nta

ti v e e n d o r s e d

r e g ulation and stated that r e g ulatio n w ou ld e ns ur e that VA " d[id ] n ot re qu ir e unre a so na ble pr oo f o f i ns e rv ic e str e sso rs in PTSD claims" ) (first codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (1993)) . I n promulg ating this reg ulation, the Secre tary expli citly relied upon se ction 501(a) (1) whe n setting forth the "na ture and extent of proof and evidenc e" nece ssary to e stablish se rvice connec tion f or PTSD, spec ifically "c redible suppor ting evidenc e" of the claimed in-servic e stressor. SeeDi re c t Se rv ic e Conne c tio n ( Pos t- tr a umatic Str e ss Disorder ), 58 F ed. Reg . at 29,110. I n the t en y ear s since the Sec reta ry promulg ated § 3.304( f), ther e12

has bee n no indication that Congr ess disapprove s of or disag ree s with the VA evide ntiary regulation and its cre dible-supporting -evide nce require ment (as contra sted with Congre ss' a ction, noted above , re g ard ing§ 3 .1 57 (b )( 2) ). Mo re ov e r, if the a pp e lla nt' s a rgume nt t hat a ll e vid e nti ary bu rdens mu st be equiva lent wer e acc epted, VA would be pr ohibited from promulg ating any specific evidentiar

y
re qu ir e me nts fo r e sta

bli sh ing e nti tle me nt to be ne fi ts. Suc h a pr oh ibi tio n w ou ld b e c on tr ary to b oth Congr ess' expli cit deleg ation to the Secre tary in section 501(a) (1) of evidentiar

y -rulemaking

au t h o ri t y an d t o C o n gre s s ', at a m i n i m u m , i mp l i ci tap p ro v al o f 3 8 C

. F. R

. § 3

. 3 0 4 (f )'s

c re dib le -s up po rt ing -e vid e nc e re qu ir e me nt a nd oth e r s imi lar e vid e nti ary re qu ir e me nts

. Fur ther, the ap p ell ant' s contention that the " cre dible supporting e vidence " r equire ment of 38 C.F .R. § 3.3 04 (f

) d isa llo ws c on sid e ratio n o f l ay e vid e nc e and

the re fo re c on fl ic ts w ith38 U. S.C. § 1154(a) is also unavailing

. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) (ser vice- connec tion regulations shall include additional provisions requiring"due consideration . . . [of] the places, ty pes, and c ircumstance s of such vete ran' s service as shown by . . . all pertinent m edica l and lay evidenc e" ). In this reg ard, section 1154(a ) does not mandate that ever y piece of evidence reg ardle ss of its nature or pr obative value must be a cce pted as suff icient t o establish the m atter at issue. Cf . 3 8 U .S. C. § 11 54 (b ) ( in c a se
o f c o mb a tv e t e r an , S e c r e t ar y sh all acc ept, inter a lia, l ay ev i dence of in-ser vice incur

renc e or ag g ravation, if consistent with circumstance s, conditions, or hardships of such service ). Contrary to the appellant' s argument, p u rs u ant to section 1154(a ), VA doe s "c onsider[] " a claimant' s lay statements re g ardinga cla imed stressor in that such state ments are utiliz ed to identify and then tr i gg er r esea

rch a s to the claimed in-se rvice stressor(s) beingput forth by the claimant se eking service connec tion for PTSD. In addition, § 3.304(f) does not nec essar ily demand the submission of off icial documenta

ry evidenc e to satisfy

the cr edible-suppor

ting- evidenc e re quirement. Indeed,

a la y st a t e m e n tf

r o m s o m e o n e o t h e r

t h ant h e c l a i m an tm ay

p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s ar

y " c r e d ibl e
supp ort in g evid ence. " See Y R v . W est , 1 1 V e t.App. 39 3, 39 7- 99 (1 99 8) (i n PT SD c a se , " ' c re dib le supporting e vidence ' " is not limited to service de partment rec ords, rathe r it can be from any source ; ho ldi ng tha

t B oa rd ' s fa ilure to dis c us s a

pp e lla nt' s si ste r' s w ri tte n s tate me nt w a s p re jud ic ia l e rr or ); see
a l s o N a t ' l Or g. of Veterans' Advocates, I nc. ,

_ _ F

. 3 d a t

_

_ , s li p o p
. a t 8

- 9

. Su c h tr e a tm e n t o f lay

ev i d en ce fr o m ei t h er

a c l ai m a n to r s o m eo n e o t h er t h an a c l ai m an tal s o d ef ea t s t h e ap p el l an t 's argument that § 3.304(f) conflicts with the re quirement of se ction 5107(b) that " all information and13

lay . . . evi den c e " be " c on sid e r[e d]." 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 7( b) ; se e Nat 'l O rg . o f V e te ra ns ' Ad

v oc ate s, Inc. , __ F.3d at __, slip op. at 10-11. Moreove r, contra

ry to the appellant' s contention, § 3.304(f) ' s cre dible-supporting -evide nce require ment does not conflict with 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) and that section' s benef it-of-the- doubt rule. See38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (whe n there is approxim ate ba lance of positive an d n ega t ive evidenc e
re g ard ing any iss ue mate ri a l to de te rm inatio n of ma tte r, be ne fi t of d ou bt g oe s to c la ima

nt) ; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 53-56 (discussing equipoise standar d). In this reg ard, if Cong ress ha d intended the

se c tio n 5 10 7( b) e qu ipo ise sta nd ard to b e e xclu siv e in a

ny e vid e nti ary

de te rm inatio n, the re wo uld have been no need for Congr ess to e nact section 501(a )(1)

. See Me e k s v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 352, 354 (1999) ( eac h part or se ction of statute should be construe d in connec tion with every other pa rt or section so as to produc e har monious whole), a

ff 'd , 216 F.3d 1363 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000). Fur th er, the benef it-of-the- doubt ru l e woul d come into play when the B oard c onsiders whe ther the e vidence offe red to corrobor ate a

claimant' s lay

statements as to cla imed stressors wa s sufficient. See G aines , 11 Ve t.A pp . at 35 9; see also Nat'l

Org. of Veterans' Advocate s, Inc. , __ F.3d at __, slip op. at 10-11. Fo r t h e r ea s o n s d i s cu s s e d a b o v e, t h e C o u rt t h u s co n cl u d es t h at § 3

. 3 0 4 (f )'s

cre dible-supporting -evide nce r equire ment is not arbitrary , capr icious, an ab u s e of discr etion, or otherwi s e n o t in a c c o r d an c e w it h la w . T h e Co u rt th e r e f

o r e h o ld s th a t th e 3 8 C. F

. R. § 3.304(f)

re qu ir e me nt of " c re dib le su pp or tin g e vid e nc e " of

the c la ime d in -s e rv ic e str e sso r i s a va lid e xer c ise by the Secr etar

y of his sec t i o n 5 0 1 (a) (1) a uthority to promulgate re g ulations as to the "nature a nd extent of proof and e vidence " ne cessa ry to establish service connec tion for PTSD.

III. Conclusi on Ba sed upon the for eg oing a n al y sis, the rec ord on appe al, the par ties' pleading s, and ora l argument, the J anuar

y 29, 1999, Boa

rd decision is V ACATED and the matter is REMANDED for

rea dju d ic a ti o nc o n s is te n t w it h th is o p in io n
. O nr e ma

n d , th e a p p e ll an t i s f

r e e to s u b mi t a d d it io n al

e vid e nc e and

argume nt o n th e re mand e d cla im in a c c or da nc e wi thKutscherousky , su pra . See Kay , su pra . The B oard sha ll procee d expeditious ly , i n acc ordanc e with sec tion 302 of the VB I A, 108 Stat. at 4658 (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101 note) (re quiring Secre tary to pr ovide for " expeditious treatment" of

claims rema

nded by Boa rd or Court).14

STEI NB ERG, Judge , concur

ring in part: I join in part I , part I I .A., t he first three par ag raphs

o f p ar tI I

. B. , t h e l as ts en t en ce (e x ce p tfo r " t h er ef o re ") o f p a r t II. C

. , an d

p ar tI I I

. o f t h e C o u rt 's opinion.