BVA Case 02-0656: Back

In the February 8, 2002, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied service connection for the veteran's MS.

[T]he Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and it must be denied .

Analysis On appeal to this Court, the appellant argues that the Court should vacate the February 2002 Board decision and remand the matter for the following reasons: (1) The Board erred by failing to find that his MS had manifested within seven years after his separation from service; (2) the Board erred by failing to apply the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; (3) the Board erred by failing to discuss adequately the credibility and probative value of lay statements submitted by the appellant; (4) VA breached its duty to assist under 38 U.

Hunt's medical opinion was inaccurate because it failed to consider competent lay evidence and was based on the appellant's incomplete medical records.

The Secretary responds that the Court should uphold the Board's decision that the appellant's MS is not related to service because it is not clearly erroneous and is, as to all issues, supported by an adequate statement of reasons or bases.

To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.

at 19-22), and the Court agrees, that in its February 2002 decision, the Board erred by failing to determine the credibility of the medical and lay evidence submitted by the appellant and by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determination that the November 2000 VA medical opinion was the only competent medical opinion on file and thus was entitled to more probative value regarding the etiology of the veteran's [MS] and outweighs the other medical evidence.

As to the lay evidence in question, although the Board did not ignore that evidence, its decision did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for the Board's apparent rejection of that evidence, specifically, as described below, an analysis of the credibility or probative value of the evidence submitted by or on behalf of the veteran in support of his claim , as required by Gilbert, supra .