BVA Case 13-0949: Back

Although most of his service medical records (SMRs)were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the 1 The Board also remanded the issue of whether new and material evidence had been received to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for a hernia.

In February 1998,the Board denied the claims, and the veteran did not appeal.

The Board denied the foot and circulatory claims because it found no evidence of a current lower extremity disability that had not already been attributed to a non-service-related cause (R.

Jones argues that the Board erred in failing to credit [his]accounts of injury and symptoms related to his claimed conditions, which he asserts are supported by the evidence of record.

He contends that the Board's error in assessing his credibility led to the Board further erring in finding that he was not entitled to VA medical examinations to 4 determine whether he has current foot and circulatory disorders and whether his eye disorders are related to service.

The Board,as factfinder,is obligated to assess the credibility of lay evidence and determine whether it is sufficient to support a claim.

As with any finding on a material issue of fact and law presented on the record,the Board must support its credibility determination with adequate reasons or bases that enable the claimant to understand the precise basis for that determination and facilitate review in this Court.

The Board is also obligated to ensure that VA has complied with its duty to assist claimants in developing their claims.