BVA Case 07-1008: Psychiatric

Wilson,through counsel,appeals a March 9, 2007,Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied his claims for entitlement to service connection for a back disability,asthma,and hypertension,and declined to reopen his finally denied claim for service connection for emphysema with bronchitis.

The RO,in August 1998,declined to award service connection for back problems,noting that the record did not evidence in-service treatment for that condition,and concluded that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence adequate to reopen his finally denied claims for service connection for arteriosclerotic heart disease (construed as high blood pressure)and pulmonary emphysema with bronchitis (construed as asthma and lung problems).

3 In March 2003,the Board issued a decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a back disability and asthma and determined that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence adequate to reopen his claims for service connection for arteriosclerotic heart disease with hypertension and emphysema with bronchitis.

Additionally,the Court in the JMR dismissed the issue of whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim for service connection for arteriosclerotic heart disease and ordered VA to consider the merits of the appellant's claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension on the merits as a separate issue.

In an October 2006 Supplemental Statement of the Case,the RO denied service connection for a back disorder,asthma, and hypertension,and determined that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to justify the reopening of his claim for service connection emphysema with bronchitis.

First,the Board found that VA had satisfied its duties to notify and assist pursuant to the VCAA.

With regard to the duty to assist, the Board observed that a portion of the appellant's SMRs,including examination and sick call reports,appeared to have been destroyed in a fire at the NPRC.

The Board noted that,in such cases,the Board has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and 1 Neither the parties'JMR nor the Court order granting that motion is contained in the record on appeal.