BVA Case 10-3268: Ptsd

First,he contends that the Board failed to comply with the requirements of Bernard v.

Specifically,he argues that the Board made negative credibility determinations as to his lay statements concerning the occurrence of his alleged stressor when the regional office (RO)had made no such credibility determinations,and further failed to provide an analysis whether he would be prejudiced by the Board's consideration of these credibility matters.

Second,he argues that VA failed to fulfill its duty to assist under 38 U.

Finally,he argues that the Board failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons or bases with regard to each of the foregoing matters.

Continuity of symptomatology may establish service connection if a claimant can demonstrate that (1)a condition was noted during service;(2)there is postservice evidence of the same symptomatology;and (3)there is medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the postservice symptomatology.

In the decision here on appeal the Board found that [t]he Veteran has been variously diagnosed as having depressive and anxiety disorders which have been clinically linked to an alleged in-service personal assault.

This case thus turns on the sufficiency of the Board's explanation of its negative credibility findings.

Compliance With Bernard The appellant argues that the RO had never previously addressed his personal credibility,and therefore,the Board's decision to address it,without prior notification, was against this Court's holding in Bernard .