UNITE D STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FO R VETE RANS C LAI MS

N O . 03- 182 8 J AM ES A. W A S HI NGT ON , A P P E L L A NT ,
V . R. J AM ES N I C H OL S ON , S EC RET AR

Y O F V ETERA NS A FF AI RS , A PPELLEE .

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

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided Nove mber 2, 2005 )

David E. Boe lzner , o f R ic hmo nd , V ir g ini a , w a s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt.
Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R

. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Joan E. Mo ria rty , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Michae l J. Burdick, all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for

the appe llee.
Be fore GREENE, Chief Judge , and KASOL D and MOO RMAN, Judges

. MOORMAN, Judge , filed the op i n i o n o f t he Court. KASOL D, Judge , filed a dissenting opinion. MOORMAN, Judge : The appe llant, J ames A. W ashing ton, seeks review through counsel of an October 2, 2003, decision of the Boa rd of Veter ans' Appea ls ( Boa rd) that denied his claim for

se rv ic e c onne c tio n f

or a bil a te ra l hi p d isa

bility . T he Court

ha s juri sd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 3 8 U .S. C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a ). For the rea sons se t forth below, the Court will vac ate the B oard' s October 2, 2003, decision and r emand the matter for further adjudication consistent with this decision.

I. F AC TS Mr. Washington ser

ved on ac tive duty

in the U.S. Army from September 1966 to April 1986. R e c o r d ( R

. ) a t1 6

- 1 7

. In t h e c o u r s e o f a d j u d i c a t i n g a s e p ar a t e c l a i mf o r , i n t e r a l i a , a b a c k d i s a b i l i t y, most of Mr. Washington' s service medical r ecor ds (SMRs) were sent to a VA r eg ional office (RO)2

on Janu ary 18 , 1 99 0, but ha ve sin c e be e n lo st. VA ' s e ff or ts t o lo c a te the m ha

ve be e n uns uc c e ssf

ul. R. at 27, 125-26, 230, 247-48, 315. The fewrema ining SMRs, dated in 1984 and 1985, a re unr elated to Mr. Washington' s bilateral hip disability ; they ref lect neither

an in-ser vice hip injury

nor treatment of any such injury

. R. at 22-25. In Dec ember 1994, Dr. Schwe g el, a pr ivate ra diologist, diag nosed Mr. Washington with " probable bilatera l oste onecr osis of the hips, more pronounce [d] on the rig ht th an th e le ft ." R. at 89 ; see also D OR L AND ' S I L L US TR ATED M ED I CA L D I CT I O N A RY 1 2 0 0 ( 2 7 th e d. 1988) [hereina fter D OR L AND ' S ] ( d e f i n i n g " o s t e o n e c r o s i s " g e n e r a l l y a s c e l l d e a t ho f

t h e b o n e )

. In J anuar y 1995, Dr. Miller, Mr. Washing ton's pr ivate phy sician, noted that Mr. W as hington ha d complained of

hip pain for 26 y ear s; and he orde red ma g netic re sonance i m agi n g (MRI ) of Mr. Was hin g to n's hip s. R. at 15 9. I n F e br ua ry 19 95 , D r. Mil le r d ia g no se d M r. Was hin g ton wi th

avasc ular ne crosis of the r ight hip and " minimal" ava scular ne cros i s o f t he lef t hip. R. at 100-01; see also D OR L AND ' S 1101 (def ining " avasc ular ne cr osis" as " morpholog ical cha ng es indicative of cell dea th and ca used by . . . defic ient blood supply ")

. I n M arc h 1 99 5, Mr . Wa sh ing ton su bmi tte d a c la im f or se rv ic e c onne c tio n f

or a bil a te ra l hi p disability

. See R. at 365. I n a J uly 1995 decision, t he R O denied that claim and advise d him that an

awa rd of service connec tion r equire d evidenc e linking his c urre nt hip disability to his a ctive military service . R. at 111-12. Mr. Washing ton filed a Notice of Disagr eeme nt (NOD) in Aug ust 1995; and the RO subsequently

issued a Statement of the Case (SOC). R. at 199-203. I n J uly 1996, Mr. Was hin g ton

fi le d a S ub st anti ve Ap pe a l w iththe B oa rd , a nd state d th a t w hil e he wa s st a tio ne d in Kore a, he ha d been tr eate d for a hip disability

. R. at 211-12. Additionally , during a per sonal hea ring at the RO in J anuar

y 1997, Mr. Washington testified t h at i n the summer of 1969, while he wa s stationed in Korea , he woke up one morning with his rig ht f oot inter nally rotated a nd pain in his right hip and thi g h; a nd tha t he wa s subs e qu e ntl y pla c e d on limit e d duty fo r ap pr oximate ly tw o mo nth s, during which time he underw ent phy sical thera py for the pain. R. at 214- 22. He f urther te stified that he re ceive d tr ea t ment for hip pain dur ing the rema inder of his military service , althoug h his few

rema ining SMRs do not reflec t any such treatment. R. at 22-25, 214-22. Following Mr. Washington' s testimony in J anuar

y 1997, the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) m ai n t ai n i ng its denial of his claim for se rvice connec tion for a bilatera l hip disabili ty

. R. at 225-28. The RO a lso notified Mr. Washington in the SSOC that copies3

of his SMRs ha d b e e n re qu e ste d fr om the Natio na l Pe rs onne l Re c or ds Ce nte r (N PRC) in S t. L ou is, Missouri, but no copies could be located. R. at 227. The re cord r efle cts that the RO re quested Mr. Washington' s rec ords from NPRC in August 1995, Nove mber 1996, and August 2001. R. at 125-26, 23 0, 31 5. Th e NPR C re pe a te dly a dv ise d that a ll of Mr

. Was hin g ton ' s a va ila ble SMRs we re se nt t o the R O on J anuar

y 18, 1990, and no additional records c ould be locate d. Id

. I n Dec ember 1998, the RO se nt M r. Was hin g ton a le tte r inf or min g him that it se nt " se ve ra l" re qu e sts to t he NPR C f

or his SMRs , but it had not re ceive d any additional rec ords. R. at 247. The RO e nclosed a milit ary rec ords specia list's " administrative decision" that conclude d that all nece ssary reque sts a nd actions had be en taken to locate Mr. Washing ton's r ecor ds, but they had bee n unsucce ssful. R. at 248. The dec ision

no te d th a t hi s r ecor ds , re c e ive d b y the RO in 1 99 0, we re late r " dis a sso c iate d f ro m [hi s c la im] f

ile at some unspec ified time" and a se arc h of the RO had f ailed to locate them. Id

. I n J uly 1997, Dr. Ta

bor, a V A phy sician, ex am i n ed M r. W ashing ton. R. at 240-43. Reg ardingMr. Washington' s hip, Dr. Tabor stated: The proble m with the hip is t hat the blood supply to the hip is lost by some incident or situation and over

the y ear s, the hip deg ener ates. This could have ha ppened in the 1969 episode that [the] veteran c omplains [ about] wi t h ab n o rm al position that he c ou ld n ot m ov e his hi p. Th e re c ou ld b e su bluxati on of that hi p at th a t ti me and

it wo uld be a pp ro pr iate a t th is t ime that th e ve te ra n w ou ld b e g in t o h a ve se ve re pa in i n the rig ht hip from the avasc ular necr osis. It is essential that his medical re cords f rom his se rv ic e c are e r b e fo un d a nd Iwo uld su g g e st that th a t be d on e in o rd e r t o c omp le te this ex amination. R. at 24 1. I n a dd iti on , D r. Ta bo r e xplici tl y

ru le d o ut t

he po ssi bil ity

that Mr . Wa sh ing ton ' s h ip disability was sec ondary

to his back disability

. Id . He a lso raised the pos s ibilit y that Mr. Washington' s hip disabilit y may have be en ca

used by steroid t reatment, but noted that Mr. Washington had no r eporte d history of such tre atment. Id

. I n May 20 00 , the B oa

rd fo un d that Mr . Wa sh ing ton ha d n ot s ub mitte d e vid e nc e lin kin g his

c ur re nt h ip d isa

bil ity to s e rv ic e or

to a n e sta bli sh e d s e rv ic e -c onne c te d d isa bil ity , a nd it d e nie d h is claim. R. at 260-68. On Nove mber 22, 2000, the Court g rante d a joint motion t o vacate the May 2000 decision and r emand the matter t o the B oard. R. at 270- 79. There afte r, the B oard r emande d to the RO M r
. Wa s h in g to n ' s c la im f o r a p p li c a ti o no f

th e V e te r an s Cl a im s A s s is ta n c e A c t o f

2 0 00 (VCAA) , Pub. L . No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096. R. 298-301.4

I nNo v em b er 2 0 0 1 , t h e R O o rd er ed an o t h er VA m ed i ca l ex am i n at i o n o f M r. W as h i n gt o n 's bil a te ra l hi p d isa

bil ity . R. a t 319. Th e e xami ne r, Dr . Mue lle r, re vie we d Mr. Was hin g ton ' s cla im f ile and noted: There is one brief

note of a n episode of limp i n g d u ri n g the servic e time in 1969, howeve r, there is no way

to verify this. X-ray

studies and MRI s done i n the early and mid-1990' s reve al ava scular ne crosis of the h i p s and deg ener ative disea se of the lumbosacra l spine. I n my opini o n , there is no evidence to corrobor ate that the incident of limping in 1969 wa s in any way related to the ava scular ne crosis of the hips which surfa ced in 1994. R. at 31 9. I n a dd iti on , D r. Mu e lle r al so ru le d o ut t he po ssi bil ity

that Mr . Wa sh ing ton ' s b ilate ra l hi p disability was sec ondary

to his back disability . R. at 319. The matter

was re turned to the Bo ar d in J une 2002, and a g ain the B oard de nied Mr. Washington' s claim, afte r finding "no pr obative evide n ce of a disorde r of e ither hip during [Mr. Was hin g ton ' s] se rv ic e or fo r a numbe r o f ye ars late r. " R. at 35 7- 58 . The B oa rd dis c ounte d h is testimony of his "pur

ported limping episode duringservice in 1969" be cause it found that he wa s not competen t to rende r an opinion re g ardingdiag nosis or etiology

. Id . M r. Was hin g ton a pp e a le d to t h e C o u rt

. I nFe b ru ary

2 0 0 3 , t h e p ar t i es fi l eda j o i n tm o t i o nfo r r em an d , s t at i n g: Con tr ary to t he B oa rd ' s f ind ing s, [Mr . Wa sh ing ton ' s] r e po rt s o f what oc c ur re d in service

. . . is compete nt and probative ev idence . Thus, the B oard' s failure to provide a basis for reje cting [Mr. W ashing ton's] otherwise c ompetent re ports of h is in-service sy mptoms, and the Boa

rd' s rejec tion of [ Mr. W ashing ton's] repor ts as " not probative" in the absenc e of a

ny contra ry evidenc e re nders its rea sons or bases ina dequate

. R. at 368-69 (c itations omitted) (empha sis added)

. The parties also ac knowledg ed that bec ause Mr

. Was hin g ton ' s SM Rs w e re mis sin g , th e B oa rd ha d a he ight e ne d o bli g a tio n to pr ov ide an a de qu a te statement of th e re as o n s o r bases f or its decision. R. at 369. L ater that month, pursuant to the parties' joint mot ion, the Court remande d the matter to the B oard. R. at 362- 73. On Octobe r 2, 2003, the Board issued the decision here on appea l. R. at 1-12. The B oard found that Mr. Washing ton's " mere alleg ation" of an in-ser vice hip injury was insufficient to show that su c h an inc ide nt ha d oc c ur re d. R. a t 11 . Rathe r, the B oa rd de te rm ine d th a t th e re mus t be so me "credi bl e in dep end ent evi den ce su ffi cie ntto corr ob orat e th e all egati on ." Id . The B oard c oncluded, t h ere fore , that the weig ht of the cr edible evide nce of rec ord established that Mr. Washin gt o n 's bilatera l hip disabili ty

was not ca

used by an in-ser vice injury . R. at 12.5

Her e on appe al, Mr. Washing ton a rgues that the Boa

rd' s statement of the rea sons or bases f or its decision is inadequate. A ppellant' s Br ief (A

pp. Br .) at 5. S pecif

ically , he alleg es that the B oard fa ile d to c omp ly wi th the Court ' s F e br ua ry 20 03 re ma

nd or de r wh e n it re

je c te d his state me nts of

his in-servic e sy

mptoms as not probative. App. B r. at 6. He a rgues that the B oard' s decision should be

reve rsed f or i ts failure to acc ept hi s testimony . App. B r. at 15. Mr. Washing ton next asser ts that the Boa rd, if cor rec t in r ejec ting his e vidence for lac k of cor roboration, violated 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) by failing to notify

him of the corr oborative evidenc e not of re cord ne eded to substantiate his c laim, and that beca use the Boa

rd' s decision turned on the lack of such evide nce, it ca nnot be har

mless error

for VA to have failed to so notify him. App. Br. at 13-14; Appellant's R ep l y Br i ef (R eply Br .) at 10. Th e Se c re tary

argue s th a t th e Court

sh ou ld a ff

ir m th e B oa

rd ' s d e c isi on

be c ause it w a s n ot c le arl y
err oneous. S ecr etar

y ' s Br ief (Sec' y

Br .) at 8-9. H e conte nds that the Boa rd ac ted within the confine s of its ad j u d i ca t o ry

authority and ac cordingto the direc tives of the Court' s Fe bruar y 2003 rema

nd. Sec' y Br . at 9-12. The Secre tary also argues t hat M r. W ashing ton was provide d VCAA-c ompliant notice; or, a lternatively , if the Court finds a notice err or, it should also find that any such er ror wa s not prejudicial. Sec ' y

Br . at 13-17.

II. AN AL YSI S The B oard' s determination of service connec tion is a question of fac t that the Court review s under the "c lear ly err oneous" standard of revie w s et forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4)

. See J ohnston v. Br own , 10 Ve t.A

pp
. 80 , 8 4 ( 19 97 ); Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 49, 53 (1 99 0)

. Th e Court mus t set aside a

finding of mater ial fact as cl ea rl y err oneous whe n the Court, afte r re viewingthe entire evidenc e of r ecor d, "is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake ha s been c ommitt ed." United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co. , 3 33 U. S. 3 64 , 3 95 (1 94 8) ; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 52. The Court

m ay r e a c h t h i s c o n c l u s i o no n l y i f t h e r e i s n o " p l a

u s i b l e b a s i s " i n t h e r e c o r d , v i e w e d i ni t s e n t i r e t y, for the B oard' s findings. Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 52-53. The Court may not substit ute its judgment fo r t he fa c tua l det e rm inatio ns of the B oa rd on iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f

a c t me re ly

be c a us e the Cou

rt wo uld have de cided those issues diff ere ntly in the first instance. Id . at 52; see M a r i a no v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 305, 313 ( 2003).6

Be fore decidinga cla im, the B oard is r equire d to c onsider all rele vant evidenc e of rec ord and to consider and discuss in its decision all "pote ntially applicable " provisions of law and r egulation. Schafrath v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 5 89 , 5 93 (1 99 1) ; see 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( a ); W eave r v. Principi , 14 Vet.App. 301, 302 (2001) (per curiam orde r). In addition, the Boa rd must include in its decision

a wr itten statement of t h e reasons or base s for its finding s and conc lusions, adequate to e nable a n
a pp e lla nt t o und e rs tand

the pr e c ise ba sis fo r the B oa rd ' s d e c isi on

a s w e ll a s to fa c ili tate re vie w i n th is Court. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); Al lda yv . B ro wn , 7 V e t

. Ap p
. 5 1 7 , 5 2 7 (1 99 5) ; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 56-57. To comply with this requirement, the B oard mu s t an al yze the cre dibilit y and probative va lue of the e vidence , acc ou nt for the e vidence that it finds persuasive or unpersua sive, and provide the re as o n s for its reje ction of any materia l evidence favor able to the c laimant. See Caluz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 ( 1995) a ff 'd , 7 8 F .3 d 60 4 ( F e d. Cir . 1 99 6) (t a ble ); Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 57. I n order to establish a claim for serv i ce co n n ec t i o n , the appellant must show (1) me dical evidenc e of a

curr ent disability ; (2) medica l or, in cer tain circ umstances, lay

evidenc e of inc urre nce or ag g ravation of a disease or injury in service ; and (3) me dical evide nce of a nexus b et we en the claimed in-se rvice injury

or disease and the c urre nt disabilit y
. Se e Caluz a , 7 Ve t.A pp . at 5 06 ; see als o H ic k so n v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 247, 252 ( 1999). He re, the appellant ha s prod uced me dical evidenc e of a

curr ent diag nosis of avascular ne crosis of his right hip and has there fore produce d

su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to s a tis fy

the fi rs t Caluz a element. Se e Caluz a , 7 Vet.App. at 506; R. at 100, 241, 319. Wit h reg ard to the second element, the appellant has provided his own lay testimony

asser ting that while on ac tive duty in K orea in the summer of 1969, he woke up one morning with his right foot internally

rotated a nd pain in his right hip and thig h. R

. at 2 1 4 -2 2 . He testified that he was subsequently

place d on limit ed duty

fo r about two months, during which he unde rwe nt phy sical thera py for the pa in. Id . The B oard, how ever , reje cted the appellant' s uncorr oborate d testimony and f o u n d t h a ti tw a s n o te v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n tt o p r o v e t h e i n - s e r

v i c e i n c u r r e n c e o f a d i s e a s e o r

i n j u r y. R. at 11. The appellant, in the B oard' s view, has ther efor e not satisfied the se cond Caluz a element for e stablishing entitlement to servic e conne ction. Se e Caluz a , 7 Vet.App. at 506. The a ppellant has also submitted an opinion fr o m Dr

. T abor maintaining that if he had, in fa ct, experienc ed an inservice hip in

j u ry i n t he manne r that he de scribed, " it would be appropr iate at this time that [he]7

would beg in to have sever e pain in the rig ht hip from avasc ular necr osis." R. at 241. That medica l

o p i n i o n supports the nexus element of Caluz a , su pra , howeve r the ne x us require ment cannot be satisfied fully

without some cre dible evidenc e of an in-service incurre nce. Although, a s the dissent

no te s, Dr . T a

bo r c on sid e re d a

nd re je c te d tw o a lte rn a tiv e e xplanatio ns fo r t he a pp e lla nt' s c ur re nt h ip dis ab i l i ty , Dr. Ta

bor did not eliminate all possibili ties. I n the abse nce of proof of an in-ser vice incurre nce, his opinion there fore amounts to nothing more tha n medical spe culation. A. Evidenc e of I

n-Service I ncurr ence I n the par ties' Fe bruar

y 2003 joint mot ion for re mand, the Secr etar y ag ree d: Contrary to the Boa

rd' s findings, the veter an' s repor ts of what occ urre d in service – that he had hip pa in and a limp, went to sick ca ll, an d was treated with phy sical thera py [–] is competent and probative evidence

. Thus, the B oard' s failure to provide a basis for

reje cting the veter an' s otherwise co m p etent re ports of his in-servic e sy mptoms, and the Boa

rd' s rejec tion of the veteran' s repor ts as "not probative" in the absenc e of a

ny contra ry evidenc e re nders its rea sons or bases ina dequate

. R. at 369 (citations omitted). The Court vac ated the B oard' s J une 2002 dec ision pu rs u ant t o that joint motion f

or rema nd; the ref ore, the Boa

rd must a cce pt the appellant' s testimony as compe tent and probative e vidence of the in-se rvice occur renc e he de scribed a

nd must then assess the cr edibility of, and we ight to be g iven to, his testimony

. See W ood v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 ( 1991) (" The [B oa rd ] h a s the duty to a sse ss the c re dib ili ty and we ig ht to be g ive n to t he ev id ence." ); se e als o Ashmore v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 580, 582 ( 1991). We respec tfully

disag ree with the dissent's asser tion that in order to be pr obative, testimony in this instance has to have been found cre dible. Rather, the appellant' s cre dibilit y aff ects the w eig ht to b e g ive n to his tes tim ony , an d it is the B oa rd ' s re sp on sib ili ty to de te rm ine the a pp ro pr iate we ig ht. Se e Lay no v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 465, 469 ( 1994) (f inding that the weig ht and credibility of evide nce "is a fac tual deter

mination g oing to the probative value of the evidence to be ma de af ter the e vidence ha s b e e n a dmi tte d" ); se e als o Uni ted St at es v . W e lsh , 774 F.2d 670, 672 ( 4th Cir. 1985) (" For evidenc e to be admissibl e .
. . it must be more probative on the poi nt for whic h it is offere d than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through rea sonable efforts. The probative va lue of evidenc e is its 'tende ncy

. . . to establish the proposition that it i s offe red to prove .' Evidence has probative va l u e i f i t t en d s to prove the issue in dispute. Credibility on the other ha

nd g oes to ' the quality or power of inspiring belief.'

. . . [A] s a g ener al rule, the cre dibilit y of a witness has nothing8

to do with whe ther or not his testimony is pr obative with r espec t to the fac t which it se eks to prove." (c itatio ns omi tte d) ); United States v. W iley , 36 M.J . 825, 829-30 (1993) (same)

. I n its October 2003 decision, t he Board found "no probative evidence of a disorder of either hi p d u ri n g the [appellant' s] s ervic e or f or a numbe r of y ear s later." R. at 11. Reg ardingthe

a pp e lla nt' s te sti mony , th e B oa

rd c on c lud e d, " the [ap pe lla nt' s] me re a lle g a tio n o f a

hip pr ob le m in service is insufficient to show such occ urre d. Rather, ther e must be some cr edible indepen d ent evi den ce su ffi cie nt to corr ob orat e th e al legat io n. " Id . H ow e ve r, the B oa rd did no t a de qu a te ly

ex p l ai n t h e b as i s fo r i t s re

j ec t i o n o f t h e ap p el l an t 's t es t i m o n y
. R at h er , i t d i s re gar d edt h e ap p el l an t 's te sti mony wi tho ut a sse ssi ngits c re dib ili ty c on c e rn inghis sy

mpt oms or

art ic ulatin g a

n a d e qu a te ba sis for f ailing to a ssess his credibility . The B oard ba sed its rejec tion of the appellant's te stimony on the Court's de cision in Espiritu v. Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). In Es pir itu , the Court found that

a lay pe rs on wa s n ot c omp e te nt t o r e nd e r a n o pin ion re g ard ingthe dia g no sis or e tio logy of a dis e a se or injury

. Es

pir itu , 2 Vet.App. at 494. Although the Boa

rd' s determination that Mr. Washing ton was incompete nt to rende r a medical diag nosis is an acc urate statement of the law , the B oard mischa rac terized the purpose for which the a

ppellant' s testimony

was introduce d. Se e id . The a ppellant neither

testified about t he diag nosis nor t he etiology of hi s curr ent hi p disability

. Rather, he was testify ing to factua l matters of which he had first-ha

nd knowledg e: Experiencingpain in his right hip an d t h i gh in service , repor ting to sick call, being place d on limit ed duty , and underg oing phy sical thera py . The a ppellant is competent to provide such testimony

. See Layno , 6 Vet.App. at 469-71 (holding that lay testimony is c omp e te nt i f i t is lim ite d to matt e rs that the wi tne ss h a s a c tua lly ob se rv e d a

nd is w ith in t

he re a lm of the wi tne ss' s p e rs on a l kn ow le dg e ); Es pir itu , 2 Vet.App. at 494 (h o l d i ng that a lay witness can provide a n "e y e-w itness" acc ount of the appellant' s visible sy mptoms, but cannot offe r evide nce that require s medical knowle dg e, such a s causation or etiology of a disea se or injury

). Whe n th e B oa

rd fo un d no p ro bativ e e vid e nc e that th e a pp e lla nt e xpe ri e nc e d a

n in -s e rv ic e hip injury , it also failed to discuss po t en t i al l y co rrobor ating evidenc e in the re cord on a ppeal. Dr

. Tabor' s statement that the appe llant's cu rr en t hip pain is an "a ppropriate " sy

mptom of having experience d the in-ser

vice hip injury

to which the appe llant testified is evidence that may be used to corrobor ate the a

ppellant' s testimony

. Se e ZN v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 183, 194 ( 1994) (r emanding9

the appe llant's c laim to the B oard when it f ailed to addre ss three phy sicians' statements, made se vera l y ea rs af t er s erv i ce , t h at t h e e x t en to f t h e ap p el l an t 's cu rr en td i s ab i l i t y w a s i n d i ca t i v e o f al o n gsta nd inginf e c tio n a nd in- se rv ic e e xpos ur e to d ise a se ); se e als o Mor e au v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 389, 39 6 (1996) (i nd ic a tin g that th e Court ' s c a se law a llo ws a ph y sic ian' s o pin ion

of c a us a l ne xus, in

cer tain circ umstances, to esta blish in-service inc urre nce of a disea se or injury , while re jecting such use in PTSD cases) . Unlike the dissent, howeve r, we are unwilling to make the initial judgment

concern ing the weig ht to be g iven to this statement. Be cause the B oard must in the first instance assess the c redibility

and probative value of

evidenc e, we will avoid e x pressing an opinion on the appropr iate cor

roborative weig ht the Boa rd shoul d have give n to Dr. Tabor' s opinion. See E lkins v. Gober , 229 F.3d 1369, 1377 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000) (" Fa ct-finding in ve tera ns case s is to be done by

the expert [Board], not by the Vete rans Court." ). As discussed su pr a , that is a deter

mination to be made by the B oard, a

nd the B o ar d err ed whe n it failed to consider and discuss it. Se e Sc ha fra th , 1 V e t.A pp . at 59 3; As hm or e , 1 Ve t.A pp . at 58 2; W

ood , 1 Ve t.Ap p. at 1 93 ; se e als o W eave r , 14 Vet.App. at 302. Th e B oa rd a lso fa ile d to dis c us s th e fa c ts i n th e re cord th at rev e a l th a t th e a pp e lla nt f ir st notified VA of his in-se rvice hip injury in his August 1995 NOD and his J uly 1996 Substantive Ap pe a l to the B oa

rd ; and he te sti fi e d a s to the de ta ils of the oc c urrence of su ch in jur y duri nghis J anuar y 1997 hear ing. R. at 211- 12, 214-17. I t w as not until J anuar y 1997, howeve r, in an SSOC issued following the appe llant's he aring testimony , that the R O first put the appellant on notice that the a pp e lla nt' s SM Rs c ou ld no t be loc a te d. R. a t 22 7. Th e n, in O c tob e r 1 99 8, the RO inf or me d h im that all actions had be en take n to locate his SMRs "without suc cess." R. at 247-48. Ther efor e, whe n the appe llant testified conce rning his in-service hip injury , he wa s unaw ar e that his SMRs were missing, and he no doubt rea sonably believed that his testim ony could be substantiated by inf or matio n ava ila

ble in h is SM Rs. Th e re is n o in dic a tio n in the B oa rd ' s d e c isi on , h ow e ve r, that it evaluated and discussed either this seque nce of eve nts or the ef fec t, if any , of Dr. T abor' s medical opinion that the appellant' s curr ent disability is an "ap p ropriate" r esult of the in-ser vice hip injury that he desc ribed. This is evidenc e that may be fa vorable to the appellant a

nd that should have be en d i s cu s s ed . The B oard e rre d in failing to adequately consider a

nd discuss it. S

e e S c h a f ra th , 1 Ve t.A pp . at 59 3; see also W

eave r , 14 Vet.App. at 302.10 B . D uty to A ssi st The B oard f

ound that VA had f

ully complied with i t s d u t y

to assist the appellant pursua nt to 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. R. at 8. Specifica lly , the Boa rd deter mined that further

eff orts to locate the appellant' s SMR s would be " futile;" that VA had obtained all postservice medical r ecor ds that the appellant had identified; and that it had g iven the appe llant opportunities to subm it any additional

e vid e nc e that wo uld su

pp or t his c la im. R. a t 8- 9. Th e B oa rd did no t a dd re ss, ho we ve r, VA ' s d

uty to exercise g reater dilig ence in a ssisti ng the appellant with the development of evidenc e in support of his claim in the eve nt that his medical rec ords wer e lost whi l e i n VA cu s t o d y
. See R usso v. Br own , 9 V e t

. A p p
. 4 6 , 5 1 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e C o u rt ' s c a s e l aw e s t a b l i s h e s a " h e i g h t e n e d

d u t y" to a ssi st whe n the a

pp e lla nt' s me dic a l r e c or ds have be e n lo st o r d e str oy e d) ; Cuevas v. Principi , 3 V e t

. A p p
. 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e B o ar d ' s d u t y t o a s s i s t a c l a i m an t i n d e v e l o pin g his claim is heig htened in ca ses in which the a ppellant' s SMR s are lost or destroy ed " and includes the ob lig a tio n to sea

rc h f or a lte rn a te me dic a l r e c or ds " ); Moore v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 401, 406 ( 1991) (h o l d i n g t h at VA 's d

u t y t o as s i s ti s "p ar t i cu l ar l y

gre at i n l i gh t o f t h e u n av ai l ab i l i t y o f t h e v et er an 's exit examination and full Army medical r ecor ds")

. Fur ther, the Court he ld in Dixon v. D erw i n s ki , 3 Ve t.A pp . 2 61 (1 99 2) , th a t w he n V A i s unable to locate a claimant' s rec ords, i t should advise him to subm it alternative f orms of evide nce to s up po rt his c la im a

nd sh ou ld a ssi st him in ob ta ini ng su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e fr om a lte rn a tiv e so ur c e s. Id . at 263. VA did not advise the appellant adequate ly as t o the alternative forms of information and

e vid e nc e that he c ou ld u se to e sta bli shhis c la im. I n p art ic ula r, VAfa ile d to a dv ise him tha t he c ou ld submit corroboration in the form of " budd ystatements" from fe llow service members a s to the

occur renc e of his in-service hip injury

. See Sizemore v . Principi , 18 Vet.App. 264, 273- 74 (2004);

se e als o Garlejo v. De rwinski , 2 Ve t.A pp . 619 , 620 -2 1 (19 92 ) (c on c lud ing that VA br e a c he d it s d uty to assist the appellant by

neg lecting to inform him that he could ask fe llow soldiers to write letters in support of his claim). Al tho ug h th e re c or d o n a

pp e a l r e ve a ls that VA d id s e arc h f or the a pp e lla nt' s mi ssi ngSMRs , t h er e is n o i n d i ca t i o n t h at VA p u rs u ed al t ern at i v e so u rc es o f ev i d en ce t o s u p p o r t t h e ap p el l an t 's claim. Specific ally , the re cord c ontains no indication that VA requested the morning r eports fr om Kore a, whe re the appellant wa s stationed during t h e summer of 1969 when the a lleg ed hip injury11

occ u r r e d

. R. a t 2 4 7

- 4 8

. I n li e u o f h is SM Rs , mo r n in g r e p o rts c o u ld h a v e b e e n u s e d to ve rify personne l actions, and corr oborate the appellant' s testimony that he wa s not available f or duty on the d at es t h at h e testi fied that he was injured. See O 'Hare v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 365, 366 ( 1991) (n oti ngthat w he n th e a

pp e lla nt' s SM Rs we re pr e sume d de str oy e d, VA a tte mpt e d to su bs tanti a te his claim by examining the morningrepor ts of the mili t ar y b as e wher e he w as stationed duringthe

mon ths that he c la imed he su stai ne d a n in jur y ); se e als o S

ize mo re , 18 Vet.App. at 267, 273 (explaining that morning repor ts document daily

personne l actions such as pe rsons wounded, killed,

or m i s s i n g i n a c t i o n ; an d t h a t s u c h r e p o rt s g e n e r a l l y c an b e o b t a i n e d f r o m t he NPR C) . A t a min imum, t

he n, VA sh ou ld have re qu e ste d the imp lic a te d mor nin g re po rt s to a ssi st t

he a pp e lla nt i n substantiating his cla im. The ne ed t o ex plore a lternatives to the a ppellant' s missi ng SMRs is emphasized by the Boa rd's attempt to drawconclusions from what was not containe d in the fewmedical r ecor ds

rema ining in th e a

p p e ll an t' s f

il e
. T h e B o ar d

r e li e d o nth e f a c t t h a t " th e f e w [S M Rs ] w h ic h are available are neg ative for hip problems" a s evidenc e that " clea rly ref ute[d] [t he appe llant's] l ater made a lleg ation of ser

vice hip problems." R. at 11. On t he fa cts of this case , the B oard c annot make fi nd ing s b a se d o n th e a

bs e nc e of e vid e nc e in the a pp e lla nt' s SMRs wh e n it do e s no t have the be ne fi t of re vie wi ngsu c h r e c or ds in t he ir e nti re ty . T he Court holds , th e re fo re , th a t th e B oa rd e rr e d in fi nd ingthat V A f

ulf ill e d it s d

uty to a ssi st the a

pp e lla nt i n o bta ini nge vid e nc e ne c e ssa ry to substantiate his claim. Specifica lly , VA' s failure to reque st the releva nt morning r eports constitutes noncompliance with its heightene d duty to assist when SMRs are lost. Se e Siz e mo re , 18 Vet.App. at 273-74; Ru sso , 9 Ve t.A pp . at 51 . L ike wi se , be c a

us e VAdid

no t a dv ise the a

pp e lla nt t hat he c ou ld submit "buddy

statements," VA failed to f ully discharg e its duty

to assist. Se e Siz e mo re , 18 Vet.App.

a t 27 3- 74 ; Ga rle

jo , 2 Vet.App. at 620-21. On re ma nd , VAsh ou ld m a ke re a so na ble e ff or ts t o o bta in

s u ch re p o rt s , s t at em en t s , o r o t h er re co rd s t h a t m i gh tp ro v i d e c o rr o b o ra t i o nfo r t h e ap p el l an t 's

asser tion that he sustained a hip injury in Korea

. C. St atement of

Reasons or B ases I nca s es wh er e, as h er e, t h e ap p el l an t 's S M R s h av e b ee nl o s to r d es t ro y ed , t h e B o ar d 's obligation to provide well -r ea s o n ed finding s and conc lusions, to evaluate and disc uss all of the evidenc e that may

be fa vorable to the appellant, a nd to provide an a dequate statement of the r easons12

or bases for its reje ction of such e vidence is also heig htened. Se e Ru sso , 9 Ve t.A pp . at 51 ; Ussery v

. Br own , 8 Ve t.A

pp . 6 4, 68 (1 99 5) ; Smith v. Derwinski , 2 Ve t.A pp . 1 47 , 148 ( 19 92 ); O'H ar e , 1 V e t.A pp . at 36 7. Th e B oa

rd no te d in its Oc tob e r 200 3 de c isi on that des pit e re pe a te d att e mpt s to l o c a t e t h e m , n o S M R s re l ev an tt o t h e ap p el l an t 's cl ai mwe re av ai l ab l e a tt h e t i m e o f t h e B o ar d 's October 2003 adjudication of his claim. R. at 3, 10. The Boa rd fa iled to rec og nize, however , that it w a s und e r a

he ighten e d d

uty to c on sid e r a

nd dis c us s th e e vid e nc e of

re c or d a nd su pp ly we llrea soned base s for its decision a s a co n sequenc e of the appellant' s missi ng SMRs

. Se e Ru sso , 9 V e t.A pp . at 51 ; Us se ry , 8 Ve t.A pp . at 68 ; Sm ith , 2 Ve t.A

pp . at 14 8; O'H

ar e , 1 Vet.App. at 367. Rather , t h e B o ar d

s u m m ar i l y

co n cl u d edt h at b ec au s e t h e ap p el l an t 's fe w r em ai n i n g S M R s we re silent for a ny complaint of a hip injury and bec ause h e did not alleg e a hip injury for a number of year s afte r ser vice, " the weight of the credible evidence establishe[d] that the [appellant' s] current bilater al hip disability

(including avasc ular ne crosis) be g an y ear s after service , and it was not ca used by any inc ide nt o f s e rv ic e." R. at 11. A s d isc us se d p re vio us ly , th e B oa rd ' s r e lia nc e on the la c k o f a

hip disability in the appellant' s few a vailable S M R s is mis place d; further more, its reje ction of the ap p el l an t 's t es t i m o n y wi t h o u t p ro p er l y as s es s i n g i t s we i gh tan d cr ed i b i l i t y

i s a f ai l u re i nt h e B o ar d 's obligation to provide an ade quate state ment of t he reasons or bases for i ts decision. This inadequa cy is more pronounce d g iven the B oard' s heig htened duty to expl ain its findings. We hold, there fore , that the B oard has failed to a dequate ly inform the appellant of the rea sons or bases for its decision to deny his claim for ser

vice c onnecti o n for his bilatera l hip disabili ty , and it has not provided a n adequate basis for r eview. Th e a pp e lla nt a rgue s f or re ve rs a l of

the B oa rd ' s d e c isi on

fo r i ts fai lur e to f

ind that hi s testimony was proba

tive and cr edible. Reve rsal is the appropriate remedy , howeve r, onl y in case s in which the only

permissible view of the evidenc e is contra ry to the Boa

rd' s decision. Gutierrez v. Principi , 19 Vet.App. 1, 10 ( 2004); J oh ns on v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 7, 10 (1996). Where the B oard ha s in c or re c tly a pp lie d th e law, failed to p ro vid e an a de qu a te state me nt o f r e a so ns or ba se s f or its de te rm inatio ns , o r whe re the re c or d is oth e rw ise ina de quate , rem and is g e ne ra lly

the a pp ro pr iate

reme dy

. Gutierrez , 1 9 V e t.A pp . at 10 ; Tuc k

e r v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 369, 374 (1998). I n this case, t h e B o ar d i n co rr ec t l y

ap p l i edt h e l aw i ni t s as s es s m en to f t h e we i gh t an d cr ed i b i l i t y

o f t h e ap p el l an t 's lay testimony

and has pr ovided an inadequate s tatement of the reasons or bases for its reje ction of,13

or fa ilure to consider, evidence favor able to the a ppellant. Howe ver, w e ca nnot conclude f

rom the

e vid e nc e of

re c or d th at th e on ly

" pe rm iss ibl e vie w" is a fi nd ingthat th e a

pp e lla nt is e nti tle d to service connec tio n fo r h i s bilateral hip disability

. See G utierrez , 1 9 V e t.A pp . at 10 ; Johnson , 9 Vet.App. at 10. Rather, re mand is the appropr iate re medy in this case to provide the Boa rd an opportunity

to weig h and co n s i d er all evidence of re cord, to e valuate the need f or fur ther development in accor dance with VA' s duty to assist, and to m ake a n appropr iate dete rmination based up on su c h d e ve lop me nt. Although the appellant r aised other arguments in his brief to the Court, the Court need not addre ss them at this ti me. See Best v. Principi, 1 5 Ve t.App. 18, 20 (2001) ( "Anarr ow dec ision prese rves f

or the a ppellant an opport u n i t y t o argue those claimed e rror s befor e the B oard at

rea djudication, and, of c ourse, be fore this Court in a n appea l, should the Boa

rd rule ag ainst him."). On re mand, the appe llant is free to submit additional evidenc e and r aise his ar g uments to the Boa rd;

an d , t h e Boa

rd is require d to consider them. See Kay v. Principi , 1 6 V e t. Ap p
. 5 2 9 , 5 3 4 ( 2 0 0 2 ); Kut sc he ro us k yv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 369, 372 ( 1999) (pe r cur iam order ). In addition, the Court

ex p ec t s that the Secr etar y will provide expeditious t reatment of this matter on rema nd. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112.

III . C ON CL USI ON Ba sed on the for eg oing a

naly sis, the appellant' s and the Sec reta ry 's b ri efs, a

nd a re view of the rec ord on appea l, the Boa rd' s October 2, 2003, decision is V ACATE D a n d t h e m atter REMANDED f

or readjudication consistent with this decision. On remand, the Boa rd must provide an ade quate state ment of the rea sons or bases for its findings and c onclusions on all material issues

o f f ac tan d l aw , i n cl u d i n g a d i s cu s s i o no f t h e w e i g h tan d cr ed i b i l i t y

i tas s i gn s t o t h e ap p el l an t 's J anuar y 1997 testimony , made be fore he knew that his SMR s were lost, and to Dr. Tabor ' s medical opinion that the appellant' s curr ent hip pain is an " appropr iate" sy mptom of havingexperience d the in-s e r v ic e h ip in

ju r y to w h ic h th e a

p p e ll an t t e s ti f

ie d

. I f , f o ll o w in g th a t d is c u s s io n , th e B oard conclude s that there is insuff icient evidenc e of an in-servic e incurre nce to at le ast put the evidenc e in equipoise, it must t hen rema nd the appellant' s claim to the RO for f urther de velopment. On such

rema nd, VA must make re asonable eff orts to obtain the rele vant morning repor ts from Kore a and14

to obtain and deve lop any evidenc e, including buddy statements, from a lternative sour ces that may

corr oborate the appe llant's te stimony and assist him in subst antiating his claim. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); Allday , 7 V e t.A pp . at 52 7; Caluz a , 7 Vet.App. at 506; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 56-57.

KASOL D, Judge , c on c ur ri ng in pa rt and dis se nti ng in pa

rt : Mr

. Was hin g ton

fi le d h is c la im more than 10 y ear s ag o. Mr. Washington ha s had three VA examinations. Many of his service medical re co rd s were lost by the Secr etar

y . His claim has bee n rema nded once by

the B oard a

nd twice by this Court. Another rema nd should occur only

if the law r equire s it and, i n t h i s case , I respe ctfully

submit, i t does not. Ia g re e wi th t

he ma jor ity that th e deci si on of th e B oa rd in t his ins tanc e is l e g a lly

inf ir m. Howeve r, whe n a ca se has be en deve loped for ove r 10 y ear s and there is e vidence supporting a war d of the claim, and the rec ord befor e the Court pe rmits only one resolution of the ke y fac tual issue – wh e the r t he pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e we ig hs a g a ins t th e c la im – reversal, no t r e mand , is

war rante d. See P ullman-Standard v. Swint , 456 U.S. 273, 292 (1982) ("Where finding s are infirm beca use of a n err oneous view o f t h e l aw , a rema nd is the proper

course un le

ss t here c or d p e rm its

o n ly one re

solution of

the factual issue ." (e mph a sis a dd e d) ); s e e a ls o P a d g e tt v
. Ni c holson , 19 Vet.App. 133, 146- 47, 151 (2005) ( en banc ) (holdingpreponde ranc e of the evid en ce m u st be ag ainst a cla im before the claim ca n be denie d; where fac tual rec ord is insuffici ent, re mand re quired), withdraw n on other grounds , 1 9 V e t.A pp . 3 34 (2 00 5) ; Ortiz v. Principi , 274 F.3d 1361, 1365 ( Fe d. Cir . 2 00 1) ; Ro bin e ttev . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 69, 76 (1995) (" [T] he unique e videntiary burdens in the VA adjudication sy stem . . . permit a mer its disallowance only wher e the e vidence prep o n d erates

a g a ins t th e c la im. " ); Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 54 ( 1990). Idisag ree with the majority 's as s es sment that the ag ree ment and re prese ntation by the Secre tary and Mr. W ashing ton to the Board that Mr. W ashing ton's te stimony was both " competent and probative" w as limited to an ag ree m en t t h at hi s testimony was de emed pr obative for adm is s ib il it

y p u r p o s e s a s o p p o s e d to p r o b a ti v e a s e v id e n c e
. E a c h o f th e c a s e s r e li e d u p o n b y the

m a j o r i t y, W ood v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp
. 19 0, 19 3 ( 19 91 ); Ashmore v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 580, 5 82 (1991); and Un ite d S tates v . W

e lsh , 774 F.2d 670, 672 ( 4th Cir. 1985), addre sses the ad missibi lity

of evide nce. Se e als o Fortuck v . Principi , 1 7 V e t. Ap p
. 1 7 3 , 1 7 9 ( 2 0 0 3 ) (" When15

making deter

minations as to whether new and materia l evidence has bee n prese nted, both this Court

and the B oa rd mus t pr e sume the c re dib ili ty of the e vid e nc e and

may no t de c lin e to r e op e n a

c la im for la c k o f n e w an d mate r ia l e v id e n c e me r e ly b e c a u s e th e p r o f

f e r e d e v id e n c e is f

o u n d to lack

cre dibilit y .") . Howeve r, nothing in this ca se supports the conc lusion that the ag ree ment was foc used on or limited to an admissibil ity deter mination. Ra the r, e ve ry

a sp e c t of thi s c a se su

pp or ts the c on c lus ion

that th e Se c re tary

wa s a c tin g in h is role a s the initial trier of fac t when he ag ree d with Mr. W ashing ton – and represe nted t o the Court and to the B oard – that Mr. Washington' s testimony was probative. See God fr e yv . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 398, 410 ( 1995) (" initial review or dete rmination" on a claim made by

ag ency of orig inal jur isd ic tio n s o th a t B oa

rd may re vie w i t) ; se e als o Disabled Am. Ve t er a n s v. Sec 'y of Veterans Af fai rs , 327 F.3d 1339, 1347 (F ed. Cir. 2003) (" [S ections] 511( a) and 7104(a ) dictate that the B oard acts on behalf of t he S ecr etar y in making the ul timate decision on cla ims and provides ' one re view on appea l to the Secre tary ' of a que stion 'subjec t to decis ion by the Secr etar

y ' under [section] 51 1( a )" ); id. a t 1346 (" Th e B oa rd is ' pr ima

ri ly an ap pe llate tr ibu

na l' of the VAthat de c ide s a

pp e a ls fr o m d en i al s o f cl ai m s fo r v et er an s ' b en ef i t s
. " ( qu o t i n g Scates v . Principi , 282 F.3d 1362, 1366- 67 (F ed. Cir. 2002)))

. B e c a

us e the tr ie r o f f

a c t c ann ot f

ind pr ob a tiv e that w hich

ha s n o c re dib ili ty , it is axiomatic that th e Se c re tary , a s th e ini tia l tr ie r o f f a c t, h a d a g re e d wi th Mr . Wa sh ing ton that hi s testimony was c redible. Se e Lay no v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 465, 469 (1994) (credibility "is a fac tual

matte r g oin g to the pr ob a tiv e va lue of the e vid e nc e " ); see also Commonwealth Land Ti tle Ins. Co. v. Barber , 95 B.R. 684, 688 n.13 (1988) ( "Unless cre dible, testimony can c arr y no probative w eig ht as evide nce." ) I f the pa rties wante d to limit their ag ree ment reg ardingMr. Washington' s testimony to one of a dmi ssi bil ity , th e y

c ou ld have e a sil y state d that fa c t; the y did no t. Mo re ov e r, if the y we re sim ply ag ree ing to the a dmissibi lity of Mr. Washington' s testimony , they should ha ve ag ree d that the matter would have to be rema

nded for the R O t o assess Mr. Washington' s testimony in the first instance, or Mr. W ashing ton would have had t o waive c onsideration of his testimony in the first instance by the B oard. See Be rn ar

d v . B ro wn , 4 Vet.App. 389, 394 ( 1993) (" [W ]hen . . . the Boa rd addr esses in its decision a question that had not bee n addre ssed by t h e R O, i t m u s t consider whe ther the claimant has be en g iven ade quate notice of the ne ed to submit e vidence or ar g ument on that questionI ndeed, t he B oard r ej ect ed M r
. W as hi ng t on' s s t at ement becau s e i t was , i n t he B oard' s vi ew, un corr ob orat ed 1
a n d b e c a u se he w a s n o t co m p e te n t as a layp e rs o n to re n d e r a m e d ic a l o p inio n , no t b e c a u se he lac k e d c re d ib ili ty. C ont r ar y t o t he B oard' s ass er t i ons , t her e i s no r equi r ement t hat M r
. W as hi ng t on' s s t at ement be cor r ob orat ed, an d s er vi ce c o n n e c tio n m a y b e sh o w n thr o u g h lay e v id e n c e
. See Row el l v
. Pr i nci pi , 4 V e t.A p p
. 9 , 1 9 (1 9 9 3 ) (B o a rd m u st e x p la in why l ay evi d ence alone i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est ab l i sh ent i t l em ent t o be nef i t s; holdi ng l ay evi d ence alone m ay b e suf f i ci ent t o est ab l i sh b enef

i t s) ; Sm i t h v. D er w i nsk i , 2 V et

. A pp
. 1 47 , 1 48 (199 2) (h ol di ng t hat " V A reg ul at i ons do not provi de t hat s er vi ce conne ct i on ca n onl y be s hown t hr ough medi cal r ecor ds, but r at her al l ow f or pr oo f t hr ough l ay ev i dence " and t hat la y e v id e n c e m a y se rv e to p la c e e v id e n c e in e q u ip o ise ); C art r i gh t v. D er w i nsk i , 2 V et

. A p p
. 24 , 25

- 2 6 (19 9 1 ) ( B o ard canno t i gno re app el l ant ' s t est i m o ny s i m p l y b ecause ap p el l ant i s an i nt erest ed p art y ; l ay evi d ence al o ne m ay b e suf f i ci ent to e sta b lish b e n e fit s) ; s ee al s o Lay no , 6 V et

. A pp
. at 469 ( l ay t esti m o ny re gar di ng obse r vat i ons of s y mp t om s "may p ro v id e su ff

ic ie n t sup p o rt fo r a c la im o f se rv ic e c o n n e c tio n , a n d it is e rr o r f o r t h e B o a rd to re q u ire m e d ic a l ev id e n c e to supp o rt t hat l ay evi d ence" ). 16 an d an o p p o rt u n i t y

t o s u b m i ts u ch ev i d en ce an d

ar gum en tan d t o ad dre s s t h at qu es t i o n at a h ea ri n g, and, if not, whether the claimant has been prejudice d there by "; if neither situation is pre sent, Boa rd must remand the que stion to t he RO for deter mination). Neither w as done. Fur ther, the Boar d never

treated Mr. Washing ton's te stimony as probative only

for pur poses
o f a dm i s s i b i l i t y
. I f t h e B o ar d h adco n s i d er edt h e S ec re t ary 's r e p r e s e n t at i o no f M r. W as h i n gt o n 's testimony as probative only

for a dmissibi lity

purposes, it should ha

ve conducte d a Be rn ar

d ana ly sis to assess pre

judice bef

ore it proc eede d to consider his t es t imony in the first instance or

discussed whether Mr. Washington ha d waived c onsideration of his testimony in the first instance by

the RO. I t did neither. 1 Acc ording ly , when Mr. Washing ton's te stimony was pre sented to the B oard, it wa s not being prese nted as proba

tive – i.e., re levant – for

admissibili ty purposes only

. I t was beingprese nted as the assessment of

the initial trier of fa ct that Mr. Washing ton's te stimony was proba

tive as evide nce – it was cre dible. See Layno and Commonwealth Land T itle Ins. Co. , both su

pra . T h u s , t h e B o ar d 's ta sk wa s to de c ide Mr . Wa sh ing ton ' s a pp e a l of the Se c re tary ' s d e nia l of

his c la im, but to do so wi thi n t h e f ra m ew o rko f t h e S ec re t ary 's , as t h e t ri er o f f a ct , h av i n g al re ad y

fo u n d t h at M r. W as h i n gt o n 's testimony of an in-se rvice injury

was c redible. Finally , althoug h I ag ree with the m aj o ri t y t h at t h e Court should not, in the first instance , deter mine the cor

roborative value of the medica l evidence in this case with re g ard to Mr. Washington' s statement, that is not the issue. The iss ue with re g ard to the me dical evide nce is one of medica l nexus . Dr. Ta

bor' s assessment t hat M r. W ashing ton's in-se rvice injury could have been the ca use of his cur

rent disability

must be considere d in the context in which it was re ndere d. Dr.17

Tabor did not simply

addre ss the in-servic e injury as a c ause of

his curre nt disabilit y . Rather, he considere d sever al ca

usative possibili ties. He reje cted the possibility that his curre nt disabilit y was seconda ry to his other service -conne cted disability and he reje cted the possibili ty it was ca used by drug s. Most im portantly , it is clear f rom Dr. Ta

bor' s exam rep o rt t h at t he only rea son he did not de fi nit ive ly c on c lud e that Mr

. Was hin g ton ' s in- se rv ic e inj ur y wa s th e c a

us e of his c ur re nt d isa bil ity was be cause he er

roneously thought se rvice connec tion could only be based on an examination of Mr. Washington' s service medical r ecor ds, which we re lost. Se e Ro we ll , Sm ith and Ca r t r ight , a ll

su pra n o t e 1

. I nth i s co n t ex t , wi t h n o ev i d en ce i nt h e r ec o rdo nap p ea l t o t h e c o n t ra ry , Dr

. T ab o r's statement is evidenc e in favor of se rvice connec tion. I t is uncontroverte d that Mr. Washington ha d an in-ser vice injury . There is medical nexus evidenc e that his curr ent di sability is consistent with his repor ted i njury and inconsist ent with other considere d possible cause s. And, afte r 10 y ear s of deve lopment, there is a b s o l u t el y no evidenc e aga i n s tM r. W as h i n gt o n 's cl ai m
. T h e p re p o n d er an ce o f t h e ev i d en ce i n t h i s re co rd d o es n o twe i gh

a g a ins t Mr. W ash in gto n' s c la im; ind e e d, in t he a bs e nc e of any ne g a tiv e e vid e nc e , it

we ig hs in h is favor . The B oard' s finding to the c ontrary should be reve rsed. See Pu ll man -St anda rd , Pa dge tt , Or tiz , Ro bin e tte , and Gi lbe rt , a ll supra. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , I

re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.