BVA Case 02-03-423: Depression

On April 29, 2008, the Board denied Howlett’s claims, finding that he was “not a credible historian” and that the service and post-service medical records “outweigh[ed] the veteran’s contentions that the claimed disorders [we]re related to his service.

Howlett alleges that the Veterans Court created a new rule of law in affirming the Board’s “haphazard credibility determina- tion,” after which the Board allegedly declined “to con- sider voluminous medical literature and clinical evidence of record.

1101(a))—through “an unfavorable credibility determination based primarily on supposition and specu- lation” and “the admission of evidence which was not relevant.

The government counters that Howlett’s appeal chal- lenges only the Board’s “factual findings, credibility determinations and weighing of evidence,” all of which this court lacks jurisdiction to review.

According to the government, the Board did not limit its HOWLETT v DVA 4 analysis to a credibility determination, but considered all evidence of record, including “an extensive discussion of the medical evidence for and against his claims.

The government is correct that the alleged errors in the Board’s credibility determination and the Veterans Court’s affirmance thereof amount to no more than an argument that the Board erred in interpreting the facts.

After reviewing all the evidence, the Board found that “the veteran’s assertions are uncorroborated or contra- dicted by service records and service medical records to such a degree that the Board finds that he is not a credi- ble historian.

On review, the Veterans Court stated: [T]o the extent that appellant urges that the Board failed to address any of the medical litera- ture he submitted, such a discussion was unnec- essary given that the Board found the appellant’s testimony was not credible and that there was no objective evidence that he actually suffered from any pathology or disease of the ear.