07-14 924, 07-14 924

Veteran served multiple periods: 1972–1975, 1976–1980, and March–October 1988; discharged other-than-honorable in Oct 1988 after accepting discharge in lieu of court-martial.
AWOL from June 9 to July 20, 1988 (42 days); administrative file showed potential referral to court-martial.
Board previously denied VA benefits based on the 1988 period, finding discharge was to escape trial by general court-martial; Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reversed/remanded multiple times.
In January 2017 the Court held the record was in equipoise as to whether the discharge was to avoid general versus special/summary court-martial and found the veteran established veteran status for Mar–Oct 1988.
Applying benefit-of-the-doubt, the Board found the character of discharge does not bar VA compensation for the Mar–Oct 1988 period and remanded claims for service connection for left foot and lumbar spine for further development (obtain SSA/private records and VA exams).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the character of the Oct 1988 discharge bars VA benefits for Mar–Oct 1988	Veteran: evidence is at least in equipoise; he is a veteran for that period and not barred	VA/Board: discharge based on acceptance to escape trial by general court-martial, which would bar benefits	Held: Evidence is in equipoise; benefit-of-the-doubt applies — discharge does not bar VA compensation for Mar–Oct 1988
Service connection for lumbar spine, to include secondary to left foot disorder	Veteran: lumbar condition is service-connected or secondary to in-service left foot injury; SSA award supports disability	VA/Board: not yet established; development and opinion needed; left foot claim not yet adjudicated	Held: Remanded — obtain SSA/private records and provide VA exam/opinion; left foot claim referred to AOJ and must be developed first

Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (establishes procedural principles regarding favorable Board action)
Pelegrini v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 412 (VA precedent on notice and adjudication)
Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.) (preponderance standard and reversal when Board’s factual finding is not more likely than not)
Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir.) (SSA records relevant and should be obtained)
McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (examiner’s opinion required when necessary to decide claim)
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine)
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (right to submit evidence after remand)