BVA Case 07-1599: Back

The appellant does not present any argument concerning the Board's determination that no new and material evidence had been received sufficient to reopen his claims for service connection for a heart condition,residuals of a head injury,and residuals of a shrapnel wound to the mouth and gums.

Duty to Notify The appellant asserts that the Board erred in concluding that VA satisfied its duty to notify him in accordance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA),Pub.

Finally,while the Board noted that the January 2004 notice letter did not ask the [appellant] to provide any evidence in his possession that pertains to the claims, 1 the Board found that, given the private medical information he has authorized VA to obtain on his behalf and the evidence he has submitted in the form of lay statements and private evidence, the appellant had demonstrated actual knowledge of that requirement.

Furthermore,the Board found that the January 2004 notice letter advised the [appellant]that the VA needed 'additional information and evidence.

In light of those findings,the Board concluded that any failure to make the specific request is non-prejudicial harmless error.

3 finding that the Secretary satisfied his duty to notify is not clearly erroneous.

2007)(Court reviews Board's finding of compliant VCAA notice under the clearly erroneous standard of review); Hersey v.

91,94 (1992)( A factual finding 'is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.