BVA Case 10-2739: Back

The Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant's claim.

The Board considered the benefit of the doubt rule,but found that because the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant's claim, the doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal.

Finally,the appellant argues that the Board failed to adequately apply the benefit of the doubt rule.

Appellant's Lay Statements The Board concluded that the appellant's recollections as to the events in service are unreliable.

It is the Board's responsibility,as factfinder,to determine the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence.

The determination of the credibility of lay evidence is a factual question reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

A finding of material fact is 4 clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

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.