*1 v. Principi, issued Herndon Circuit (Fed.Cir.2002). might
F.3d While we
have reached a different conclusion were slate, Herndon com- writing on a clean
we reject appellant’s arguments us to
pels 12, 1984, April SOC denied process required due January
Board to vacate the 1985 Board
decision, and the same SOC rendered January 1985 decision non-final. For
the reasons stated the Federal Circuit Herndon, 27, 2000, July the two Board must affirmed.
decisions
The appellant opposed also submitted an
motion for leave to submit an illustrative
Board decision. That Board is decision Court, binding on it and was
record the time the Board decisions
in this case.
Upon foregoing, consideration it is
ORDERED the appellant’s motion file an illustrative Board decision
denied. It is further
ORDERED that both Board decisions July
dated are AFFIRMED. MORAN, Appellant,
David C.
Anthony PRINCIPI, Secretary of J. Affairs, Appellee.
Veterans
No. 99-754.
United Court of Appeals States Claims. Veterans April
Argued
Decided June *2 KS, Topeka, Carpenter,
Kenneth M.
appellant.
O’Connor,
Tim
military occupational specialty
with whom
S.
that his
Gary E.
(R.
(MOS)
12, 222)
McClain,
Counsel;
General
R. Randall
was cook
Vietnam,
Counsel;
during
Assistant General
his tour of
Campbell,
duty
Jr.,
A,
Cassidy,
Acting Deputy
assigned
V.
to Company
Engineer
Edward
20th
*3
(R.
225).
Counsel,
223,
General
on
at
January
Assistant
were
the Battalion
In
D.C.,
1983,
Washington,
appellant
all of
for the
pleadings,
applica-
the
submitted an
appellee.
tion for
compensation
pension
VA
or
bene-
for,
55-58;
fits
inter
“nerves.” R. at
KRAMER,
and
Judge,
Before
Chief
see
(discharge summary
R. at 62-63
for
STEINBERG, Judges.
and
FARLEY
private
12,
hospitalization from December
1982,
14, 1983;
January
to
physician diag-
KRAMER,
Judge,
Chief
filed the
nosed appellant
dysthymic
with
disorder in
STEINBERG,
the
opinion Court.
personality);
schizoid
also R. at 190-96
see
concurring
an
in
Judge,
opinion
part.
filed
(from
1983,
December 1982 to
ap-
October
KRAMER,
Judge:
Chief
pellant
private hospital
at
seen
second
counsel,
appellant
The
appeals, through
complaining
anxiety,
depression, ner-
29, 1999,
January
a
Board of Veterans’ vousness,
sleeping).
trouble
On
(Board
BVA)
Appeals
that
decision
de
1983,
10,
March
the appellant was afforded
claim
nied his
for service connection for
examination;
a
psychiatric
VA
examin-
the
(PTSD).
post-traumatic
stress disorder
er diagnosed
having
the
appellant as
(R.)
2, 3-4,
at
appellant
Record
The
and dysthymic disorder by history
pre-
with
Secretary
briefs,
the
filed
have
the
components
(gastrointestinal).
dominant
appellant has
reply
par
filed a
brief. The
(March
76-77;
R. at
see R. at 68
1983 VA
filed,
ties also have
pursuant to two Court
listing
medical
diagnosis
certificate
orders, supplemental pleadings addressing
disorder).
probable
depressive
chronic
A
the
impact
appeal
this
the enactment
(RO),
15,
April
VA
office
in
regional
an
of the Veterans Claims
Act of
Assistance
1983, decision,
denied the
claim
2000,
106-475,
No.
Pub.L.
Stat. 2096 for
for a
service connection
nervous disor-
(VCAA),
in
opinion
and this Court’s
Holli
der.
The
did
appellant
R. at 79-80.
(2001).
day
Principi
appeal that RO decision.
addition,
the
parties
Court ordered the
12, 1994,
appellant
On September
to
questions concerning
address two
compensa-
application
submitted an
for VA
3.304(f).
validity of 38 C.F.R.
re
pension
tion or
benefits for
R. at
PTSD.
sponse,
appellant
and the
93-96;
R.
(appellant hospital-
see
at 87-89
briefs,
supplemental
have filed
and the
22, 1994,
hospital
ized in
August
VA
from
appellant
supplemental
has
reply
filed a
1994;
19,
examiner
September
diag-
appeal
timely,
brief. This
Court
having
nosed
as
and stat-
appellant
PTSD
jurisdiction pursuant
has
to 38 U.S.C.
ed in addendum that PTSD was consid-
7252(a)
7266(a).
For
reasons
during
ered
result of
to be
stress incurred
follow,
will
Court
vacate
Vietnam),
duty
tour of
98-126 (progress
Board’s decision and remand the matter
R. at
hospitalization);
notes from
see also
readjudication
for
with
consistent
134-39, 141-47,
17,
An
259-76.
October
opinion.
report
evaluation
psychological
Background
I.
appellant
reflects that the
related
duty
The
on active
his
Viet-
appellant
during
served
examiner
service
nam,
January
spent
from
in-
1969 to November
he had seen combat and had
as a
cluding service Vietnam. R. at
223. most of his time not
cook but as a
reflect,
personnel
guard
His
engineering
service
records
inter
battalion
reopen
claim for service
bridges. R. at
built roads and
condition,
as
a nervous
to in-
diagnosed
appellant
examiner
connection for
The
January
appellant
at 131. From
R. at 217-19.
having PTSD. R.
clude PTSD.
The
appellant
January
appeal
that decision.
did
a VA medical center.
hospitalized
was
In October
submit-
appellant
158, 160-61,
556-58;
163-
R. at
R. at
affidavit,
affidavit.
In that
ted a stressor
hospitalization, the
74. As
result of
he asserted that
March
while
having,
diagnosed
was
assigned
“Camp
unit
duties
(Axis I)
traits
and borderline
Enari,
Corps
operations,”
II
area
II).
(Axis
R. at
see R.
subjected
mortar
frequently was
fire
*4
notes,
(progress
dated
a
approximately
period,
over
two-week
and
1995,
September
to
from December 1994
(2) regardless of where his unit was sta-
relating
counseling
to
sessions
appellant’s
Vietnam,
subjected
the
tioned
unit was
Clinic).
at VA Mental Health
to
fire and
nightly
sniper
particularly
he
RO,
February
1995 letter
the
The
a
sniper
the
fire that occurred
remembered
complete
he
and
requested that
appellant,
the
An Khe. R.
when
unit was stationed at
to the
an enclosed PTSD stres
return
RO
377; see
at 566 (during counseling
at
R.
R. at
form.
183. Subse
sor verification
session,
experiences mortar
relating
of
fire
1995,
23,
appellant
on March
the
quently,
Vietnam).
sniper
and
fire in
In a Decem-
R. at
a VA
examination.
underwent
PTSD
decision,
again
the
deter-
ber
RO
examination,
report
In
of that
the
mined that new and material evidence had
the
had
appellant
examiner noted that
the
appel-
to reopen
not been submitted
the
that,
duty
during his tour of
related
claim.
lant’s PTSD-service-eonnection
R.
Vietnam,
a cook
of the
he had been
most
appellant timely appealed
at 381-83. The
operations”
had
“fill in in
time and
field
(R.
397),
at
that RO decision
and the
guard duty occasionally; the exam
and on
him a
of the
RO issued to
Statement
Case
appellant
further
that the
had
iner
noted
390-95).
(SOC) (R.
Board, in
at
The
a
only
duty
that
was to
related
“his
combat
25,1997, decision,
that
June
concluded
new
other
guard duty
the unit on
and
protect
had
and material evidence
been submitted
R. at 207. The examiner
details.”
such
reopen
appellant’s service-connec-
the
having,
inter
diagnosed
appellant
claim
remanded that claim to
tion
and
chronic,
alia,
history of
dysthymia,
and
development.
for further
R. at 399-
RO
(Axis I)
disorder,
personality
and
PTSD
otherwise
with borderline
specified,
not
RO,
remand,
Pursuant
(Axis II).
antisocial
R. at 209.
and
traits
a
to the
October
sent
letter
U.S.
appellant’s
The examiner
opined
Armed Services Center for Research of
not
symptomatology
significant
was
(USASCRUR) requesting
Unit Records
symptomatology
and that his
was
PTSD
appellant’s
for the
supportive evidence
dys-
more
of a
suggestive
much
chronic
claim, specifically
of
verification
his
significant
with
thymic
coupled
condition
a
April
R. at
In
asserted stressors.
disorder. The examiner fur
personality
responded to that
USASCRUR
RO
Axis II
opined
ther
that he considered the
request with
a letter in which the di-
significant part
a
pathology
stated,
alia,
inter
and rector
USASCRUR
appellant’s current manifestations
after extensive research of available
April
In an
deci
symptoms.
Id.
unit
sion,
Army
combat
records for the
the RO determined that new
U.S.
higher
unit
assigned
and its
appellant’s
material evidence had
been submitted
headquarters,
January 29,
unable to
USASCRUR was
Board decision
(R.
found,
appeal,
inter
BVA
verify
listed stressors
579)
personnel
service
records
“Operational
Re-
copies
DD214
his
reflect that he had served
Leaned”
ports
submitted
—Lessons
in Vietnam and that MOS
was cook but
locations,
listing
appellant’s unit
the unit’s
do not reflect that
awarded
missions, operations,
significant
activi-
indicating exposure
medals
to combat. R.
(R.
during
duty
ties
his tour
Vietnam
at 3. The Board further found that
580-613).
had
appellant
submitted
stressor affida-
pursuant
June
also
to the June
sniper
vit as to mortar fire and
fire but
remand,
1997 BVA
af-
appellant was
that USASCRUR records do not reveal
forded a VA mental disorders examination.
unit
experienced any
that his
had
mortar
that, therefore,
report
sniper
R. at 617-21.
fire and
The
that examina-
USASC-
verify
RUR was
able to
his asserted
tion reflects that the
had related
R.
stressors.
at 3-4. The Board deter-
examiner,
history
mined that the record contains no evidence
experiences.”
“recollections of combat
R.
to corroborate either combat service or the
diagnosed
ap-
at 618. The examiner
*5
in-service stressors claimed
the appel-
as
inter
pellant
having,
obsessive-com-
that,
lant. R. at
4. The Board concluded
I)
(Axis
pulsive
dysthymia
disorder and
therefore,
service connection for PTSD
disorder,
personality
and
not otherwise
any
was not warranted because
such disor-
(Axis
specified, with borderline features
der
not incurred in
was
service and denied
II).
opined
R. at
The
619-20.
examiner
appellant’s
the
claim. R.
5.
in
appellant
present
that the
not
the
“d[id]
appellant timely
The
appealed the Janu-
in
normally
manner
which one would
ex-
ary 1999 Board
to
decision
this Court.
to
pect
see someone with
R. at
PTSD.”
argument
Oral
instant panel
before the
opined
He
primary
further
that the
on April
was heard
diagnosis,
appellant’s symp-
based on the
Analysis
II.
toms,
personality
was borderline
disorder
and that such
not
symptomatology was
A. VCAA
service,
type
military
that arose from
rath-
Subsequent
to the Board decision
predated military
iter
service. R. at 620-
Congress
on
appeal,
enacted
VCAA.
21. The examiner stated
on the basis
VCAA,
The
amended 38 U.S.C.
of his interview
the appellant
with
and his
(“Notice
required
5103
to claimants of
record,
of
appellant’s
review
medical
evidence”)
information and
and added 38
appellant
R.
does
have PTSD.
§ 5103A
(“Duty
U.S.C.
assist claim
finally
621. He
stated that he does not
ants”).
3(a).
regard,
VCAA
In this
symptoms
appel-
believe that
Appeals
U.S.
for the Federal
Court
obsessive-compulsive
lant’s
disorder and
(Federal Circuit) has
Circuit
issued two
personality
appel-
borderline
related to the
addressing
appli
decisions
the retroactive
military
lant’s
service because
was
there
provisions
cability
some of the
of the
no evidence of
that the symptoma-
record
Principi,
VCAA. See Bernklau v.
291 F.3d
tology
military experience.
arose from
Id.
(Fed.Cir.2002); Dyment v.
803-06
July 27, 1998,
Subsequently,
the RO
(Fed.Cir.
on
287 F.3d
1385
Principi,
Supplemental
2002).
issued to the
appellant
opinions,
both of
“the
those
in which
claim for
SOC
service connec- Federal Circuit held that the sections of
tion for PTSD
denied. R. at
codified at
was
the VCAA
38
in
5103A, concerning
adequately
and
whether he had served
com
notice
(Br.)
bat.
at 6-11.
Appellant’s Brief
provided to claimants
assistance to be
regard,
concluding
appel
this
that the
VA,
retroactively applicable
pro
are
combat,
lant
had not served
the BVA
ceedings
complete
that were
before VA
upon his
cook and the ab
relied
MOS of
appeal
and were
this Court or the
any
sence of
notation either
his service
Federal
when the VCAA was en
Circuit
personnel records or on his DD214 that he
Principi,
acted.”
Stephens
had
awarded
medals or commen
been
order)
(per
(citing
curiam
indicating
he had
ex
dations
been
Bernklau,
803-06).
F.3d at
Because
Board,
posed to combat. R. at 3. The
appellant’s
“on appeal
PTSD claim was
however, completely failed to
discuss
at the time that Congress
Court”
engaged
that he
assertions
had
VCAA,
enacted the
the notice
assis
(Octo
3-4;
R. at
R. at
combat.
provisions
inappli
tance
are
VCAA
report
psychological
ber 1994 VA
reflect
proceeding. Stephens, supra.
cable to this
ing
appellant
had related that he had
therefore,
Court,
proceed
The
will
Vietnam),
seen
combat while
arguments.
merits
(March
report
1995VA
examination
had
indicating
described his
B. Combat Status
duty
protecting
combat
unit
to which
required
provide
The Board is
assigned),
(during counseling
ses
a written
reasons or
statement
bas
sion, relating experiences of mortar fire
findings
es for its
all
conclusions on
fire),
(June
sniper
1998 mental
presented
material
of fact and law
issues
report
reflecting
disorders examination
record;
on the
must be ade
statement
*6
that
had
that
appellant
experi
related
to
a
to
quate
enable
claimant
understand
experiences);
enced recollections of combat
decision,
precise
basis for
Board’s
West,
353,
Vet.App.
v.
11
Gaines
359
as
in this
as well
to facilitate review
Court.
(1998)
where,
(finding
in analyzing
error
(d)(1);
7104(a),
§
See 38 U.S.C.
Charles v.
combat,
appellant
engaged
whether
had
in
370,
(2002);
Principi,
Vet.App.
16
373
partly
on lack of
of
Board
relied
award
301,
Principi,
Vet.App.
Weaver v.
14
302
showing
medals
combat service but ne
(2001)
order);
(per
Allday
curiam
v.
glected
address,
appellant’s
inter
Brown,
517,
(1995);
7 Vet.App.
527
Gilbert
testimony
sworn
had
in
engaged
that he
(1990).
Derwinski,
v.
1
57
Vet.App.
To
combat);
Brown, 10 Vet.App.
Cohen v.
comply
requirement,
with this
the Board
(concluding,
145-46
to com
as
analyze
credibility
probative
must
status,
bat
that
it
Board erred where
evidence,
of
value
account
the evi
finding
credibility
failed to make
as to
of
it finds to
persuasive
dence that
or
appellant’s
testimony describing
sworn
unpersuasive,
provide
the reasons for
Vietnam;
stating
further
that 38
duties
rejection
its
fa
material evidence
1154(b)
§
require
does
BVA
vorable to the claimant.
v.
See Caluza
accept appellant’s assertion that he en
Brown,
(1995),
Vet.App.
7
506
aff'd gaged
enemy
in combat with
and that such
curiam,
per
78 F.3d
The Court thus concludes apply, spe- 38 C.F.R. adequately “all Board failed to consider cifically requirements pertaining appli of record and Therefore, evidence and material non-combat veterans. provide and to an provisions cable of law” Court will address the conten- adequate statement of reasons bases for tion credible-supporting-evidence that the 7104(a), (d)(1); 3.304(f) its decision. 38 U.S.C. reg- renders the Caluza, Charles, Weaver, Allday, Ga Appellant’s ulation invalid. See Br. at 15- brielson, Gilbert, supra. all Accord Appellant’s Supplemental (Supp.) Br. ingly, January the Court will vacate the at 2-12. Board decision and will remand the regard, this the Federal Circuit re readjudication. claim for
appellant’s PTSD
cently
opinion upholding
issued an
the va
3.304(f)
disposition
lidity
denying
petition
as to the combat-
Given
issue,
regulation
need not address
for review of that
insofar
status
the Court
appellant’s remaining arguments
provides
as to
evidence other
may
the need for remand because he has not
than the veteran’s service records
prejudiced
account of
demonstrated that he would be
corroborate that veteran’s
by a remand of his PTSD claim without
occurrence of
in-service stressor
*7
of those assertions of
PTSD-service-connection
claims based
consideration
Org.
Nat’l
upon
personal
error because the asserted errors could
assault.
Advocates,
eventually
Sec’y
Inc. v.
likely
properly
raised or
Veterans’
Veter
(Fed.
Affairs,
to the Board.
ans
remedied
remand
See
F.3d
3.304(f)(3)
Derwinski,
Cir.2003);
1 Vet.App.
Fletcher v.
see 38 C.F.R.
(1991) (remand
(2002);
is meant to entail critical
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Assault,
decision;
justification
examination of
for
Claims Based on Personal
67 Fed.
(March
2002).
10,330, 10,330, 10,332
Reg.
that
will reexamine
expects
Court
BVA
3.304(f),
record,
any
addressing
challenge
other
the
evidence of
seek
neces
evidence,
petition
the
sary
timely, well-sup
and issue
the Federal Circuit described
decision).
remand,
argu
ported
appel
credible-supporting-evidence
On
er’s
being that non-combat-related-
lant is free to submit additional evidence ment as
satisfy argument,
including
arguments
and
PTSD claimants must
evidentia-
reply
ry
imposed upon
combat-
opening
requirement
raised
and
brief
Court,
that
in accordance with
related-PTSD claimants and
addition
Kutscher
West,
not consis
ousky
evidentiary requirement
372-73 al
v.
1154(a)
5107(b).
order).
and
(per
Kay
curiam
See
tent with 38 U.S.C.
Advocates, Inc.,
stressors,
following provisions
Org.
apply
See Nat’l
Veterans’
specified
157
314,
promulgate regulations gov-
West,
powered
321
13
Trilles
(en banc).
proofs
“nature
extent of the
Congress
erning
is
“If the intent
matter;
necessary to establish enti-
clear,
for the
and evidence”
that is the end
give
disability
An
court,
agency,
must
tlement to VA
benefits. See
as well as
105,
I,
expressed in-
ch.
art.
unambiguously
Act of October
sec.
effect to
Chevron,
at
2,
13,
398,
467 U.S.
Congress.”
40
see also 38
tent
Stat.
If, however,
210(c)
842-43,
(1958);
a
104 S.Ct.
War Veter-
World
issue,
Act, 1924,
320,
I,
5,
as to the matter at
statute is silent
ans’
ch.
title
sec.
the court is whether the
question
607,
“the
Pursuant to that autho-
Stat.
permissible
is based on a
agency’s
rization,
answer
Secretary promulgated sever-
Chevron, 467
of the statute.”
construction
regulations dealing
al
with various eviden-
“
843,
power
‘The
at
104 S.Ct.
burdens,
U.S.
in
tiary
as to both VA benefits
agency to administer
of an administrative
general
specific
and claims based on
dis-
program
created ...
eongressionally
abilities,
that must be
order for
satisfied
pol-
the formulation of
necessarily requires
a claimant to
benefit entitlement.
establish
making
gap
3.157(b)(2)(1964)
of rules to fill
icy and the
(requir-
See 38 C.F.R.
”
left,
by Congress.’
implicitly
explicitly,
ing,
increased-rating
and re-
certain
Chevron,
467 U.S.
S.Ct.
eases,
private
that evidence from
opening
Ruiz,
Morton v.
U.S.
(quoting
layman
verified
official
physician or
(1974)).
benefits),
39 L.Ed.2d
94 S.Ct.
to award of
prior
examination
(1964) (requiring, in certain instanc-
3.203
501(a)(1),
clearly
Congress
In section
es,
verification of ser-
department
service
authority to
explicit
gave the
3.311b(a)(3)(ii)(1986) (in
vice),
claim based
regulations dealing with the
promulgate
radiation, detailing
exposure
ionizing
proof
and evidence”
“nature and extent
is considered to be
when dose estimate
establish,
necessary to
service
“
3.350(a)(5)
”),
from ‘credible
source’
for the
question
for PTSD. The
connection
(1964) (for
monthly compensation
special
Court,
therefore,
is whether
the Secre-
deafness, examination must be
rating for
interpretation
explicitly
of his
dele-
tary’s
clinic),
audiology
held at VA authorized
3.304(f),
§in
authority
expressed
gated
3.374(c) (1964)
confirmation of
(requiring
generally
given
is
interpretation
which
diagnosis
pul-
of active
private physician’s
controlling weight,
arbitrary, capricious,
tuberculosis).
monary
discretion,
or otherwise not
an abuse of
with law. See 38 U.S.C.
accordance
1991, Congress
reen
Subsequently,
7261(a)(3)(A); Chevron,
467 U.S.
change the
acted without
substantive
statutory
Direct
See
Service Connection
action,
time,
at that
to discontin
Disorder),
29,-
took no
Fed.Reg.
matic Stress
Secretary’s interpretive
ue or alter the
years
Secretary
the ten
since the
Lindahl v.
Pers.
actions. See
3.304(f),
promulgated §
there has been no
Office of
n.
Mgmt., 470 U.S.
S.Ct.
Congress disapproves
indication that
of or
(Congress
84 L.Ed.2d
disagrees
evidentiary
with the
regula
VA
presumed
administrative
to be aware of
tion and its credible-supporting-evidence
judicial interpretation
or
of statute and
(as
requirement
Congress’
contrasted with
adopt
when it reen
interpretation
action,
above,
regarding
noted
change).
acts statute without
In this re
3.157(b)(2)). Moreover,
§
if
appel
gard,
Congress
to alter the
when
desired
argument
lant’s
evidentiary
all
bur
Secretary’s evidentiary regulations, Con
equivalent
dens must be
accepted,
were
gress
Specifically, in
explicitly.
did so
prohibited
promulgat
VA would be
from
§
Congress enacted 38
U.S.C.
ing
specific evidentiary requirements
3.157(b)(2)
§
to eliminate the 38 C.F.R.
establishing
entitlement
to benefits.
that,
requirement
prior to an award of
prohibition
contrary
Such a
would be
benefits,
private physician’s
VA
medi
Congress’ explicit delegation
both
report
cal-examination
be verified
501(a)(1)
Secretary
section
of evidentia
official
report.
VA examination
See Vet
ry-rulemaking authority
Congress’,
and to
Improvements
Benefits
Act of
erans’
minimum,
at a
implicit approval of 38
301(b),
§
Pub.L. No.
3.304(f)’s
§
C.F.R.
credible-supporting-evi
(VBIA);
Stat.
see also 38
requirement
dence
and other similar evi
3.157(b)(2)
§
U.S.C.
38 C.F.R.
dentiary requirements.
(1995).
Further,
contention
Here,
evidentiary regulation
at is
the “credible supporting evidence”
sue,
3.304(f),
promulgated
38 C.F.R.
of 38 C.F.R.
disal
in 1993. See Direct Service Connection
lay
lows consideration of
evidence and
(Post-traumatic
Disorder),
Stress
58 Fed.
therefore
conflicts with
38 U.S.C.
1993)
29,109, 29,109-10
Reg.
(May
1154(a)
unavailing.
is also
See 38
(stating
amending
adjudi
that VA was
its
1154(a) (service-connection
regu
regulations
cation
to establish extent of
lations shall include
provisions
additional
required
evidence
to establish service con
requiring “due consideration ...
[of]
PTSD;
nection for
noting
when com
places, types, and circumstances of such
proposed regula
ments were invited on
veteran’s service as
...
per
shown
all
tion,
Psychiatric
American
Association
evidence”).
lay
tinent medical and
In this
representative
regulation
endorsed
1154(a)
regard, section
does not mandate
regulation
stated that
would ensure that
that every piece
regardless
of evidence
require
proof
“d[id]
unreasonable
claims”)
probative
its nature or
value
must be ac
inservice stressors
(first
3.304(f) cepted as sufficient to establish
mat
codified at 38 C.F.R.
(1993)).
(in
1154(b)
ter at
issue.
promulgating
regulation,
Cf.
veteran,
Secretary explicitly
case of combat
upon
relied
section
shall
501(a)(1)
accept,
setting
lay
when
forth the
“nature
evidence of in-ser
of proof
extent
and evidence”
vice incurrence or
if
aggravation,
neces
consis
sary
circumstances,
conditions,
establish service connection for
tent with
PTSD,
service).
specifically
supporting
“credible
ev- hardships
Contrary
of such
*10
determination,
any evidentiary
exclusive in
to sec
argument, pursuant
appellant’s
no need for Con
there would have been
1154(a),
“consider[]”
does
tion
501(a)(1). See
gress
to enact section
regarding
lay statements
claimant’s
West,
12 Vet.App.
v.
Meeks
in that such statements
claimed stressor
(each
section of statute should be
trigger
part or
identify and then
are utilized to
every other
construed in connection with
claimed in-service
as to the
research
stressor(s)
harmoni
produce
or
so as to
part
the claimant
section
being put forth
(Fed.Cir.
whole),
Moreover, parties’ pleadings, contrary appel appeal, record on 3.304(f)’s January contention, argument, and oral credible-sup lant’s the mat- is VACATED and does not Board decision porting-evidence 5107(b) readjudication for and that ter is REMANDED conflict with 38 U.S.C. remand, opinion. with this On rule. See 38 consistent section’s benefit-of-the-doubt 5107(b) (when submit additional is free to approxi there is on the remanded argument evidence and positive negative mate evi balance Kutscherousky, in accordance with material to de claim regarding dence issue matter, Kay, supra. The Board shall supra. See benefit of doubt termination Gilbert, in accordance with claimant); expeditiously, proceed goes to standard). VBIA, at 4658 108 Stat. section 302 (discussing equipoise note) (found (requiring at 38 U.S.C. Congress if had intended the regard, 5107(b) “expeditious provide standard to be equipoise section *11 claims remanded Board treatment” of Court).
STEINBERG, Judge, concurring in
part: H.A., join I,
I part part the first three II.B.,
paragraphs part the last sentence “therefore”) H.C., part
(except for
part opinion. III. of the Court’s SVEHLA, Appellant, A.
Dennis
Anthony PRINCIPI, Secretary J. Affairs, Appellee.
Veterans
No. 00-0418. Appeals
United States Court of
for Veterans Claims.
Argued Nov.
Decided June Krasnegor,
Daniel G. with whom Chris- topher brief, A. Glaser was on the both of D.C., Washington, appellant. for the Walsh, A. Kenneth with whom Tim S. McClain, Counsel; General R. Randall Counsel; Campbell, Assistant General Rippel, Brian B. Deputy Assistant General Counsel, D.C., Washington, all of were on appellee. the brief for the FARLEY, STEINBERG, Before GREENE, Judges.