BVA Case 03-0106: Back

connection for retinitis pigmentosa (RP)contained clear and unmistakable error (CUE)and (2) that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen the appellant's previously and finally disallowed claim for service connection for RP.

at 243-44);the RO apparently construed that statement as a claim to reopen his RP service-connection 2 - � claim,and sent him a letter explaining that new and material evidence was required (R.

On appeal,the appellant appears to argue that the Court should reverse the July 2002 BVA decision on the grounds that (1)the Board erred in concluding that the 1990 May RO had not clearly and unmistakably erred in finding that the appellant's RP preexisted service and was not aggravated by service,and (2)that the Board erred in concluding that new and material evidence was not presented after 1990 (the Board had used the August 1998 RO decision as the benchmark from which to determine whether such new and material evidence had been submitted,R.

The Secretary argues (1)that the Board erred by denying rather than dismissing the CUE claim and that the Court should therefore vacate that portion ofthe July 2002 BVA decision on appeal and remand the CUE matter so that the Board may dismiss the CUE claim without prejudice,and (2)that the Board's conclusion that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen his RP service-connection claim was not clearly erroneous,and that the Court should therefore affirm that portion of the BVA decision.

400(q)(2) (2004) (providing that when previously disallowed claim is reopened and allowed on basis of new and material evidence in form ofservice department records,effective date is date such disallowed claim was filed).

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

In that 7 - - analysis,however,the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its conclusion that the RO did not err in determining that the appellant's RP preexisted service.

Specifically,the Board failed to discuss whether the RO had determined preexistence of the appellant's RP according to the applicable evidentiary standard - clear and unmistakable evidence.