BVA Case 13-1968: Back

In May 2009,the Board denied the appellant's claim based on its finding that the service records clearly and unmistakably established that the appellant's left knee disorder preexisted service and was not aggravated by service.

However,in doing so,the Board noted that the record contained conflicting statements from the [v]eteran regarding his history of left knee injury and symptoms before and during service, but notified the VA examiner of its factual finding that the most credible report from the [v]eteran regarding his history of left knee injuries and symptoms consists of his statements to military examiners in October 1969,wherein he 3 reported a history of left knee injury in 1965 followed by symptoms of 'giving out,'swelling,and locking.

In its decision, the Board found the appellant's and his family members'recent statements that he did not have a preexisting left knee injury incredible,and discounted the probative value of the December 2010 medical opinion,which failed to account for the appellant's highly credible in-service lay statements.

In the request,the Board noted that it had found 4 the [v]eteran's assertions of an in-service injury not to be credible[,] and therefore,requested the orthopedist to disregard the [v]eteran's contentions and assume that there was no specific left knee injury during basic training.

The Board determined that the presumption of soundness attached to the appellant's claim because his entrance examination was silent for a left knee disability.

In doing so,the Board found the appellant's assertions denying a preservice injury to his left knee as well as his allegations of an in-service injury sustained during piggyback exercises incredible,and afforded significant probative value to the appellant's service treatment records and the 2013 VHA orthopedist's opinion.

ANALYSIS The appellant argues that the Board erred when it concluded that the evidence clearly and mistakably established that his torn medial meniscus preexisted service and was not aggravated by service.

He asserts that the Board's conclusions are premised upon clearly erroneous credibility determinations and a tainted VHA medical opinion.