BVA Case 13-3507: Psychiatric

Woods-Calhoun argues that the Board erred in its (1)threshold determination that she was not credible,and (2) determinations to deny benefits.

n finding that there was evidence of possible organic impairment,impaired reliability,and a lack of credibility,and (4) provided an inadequate statement of reasons and bases for its adverse credibility determination.

Woods-Calhoun's statements from a February 2011 Board hearing that she reported in-service headaches and foot problems for which she was issued inserts,but the Board found no service records of any such reports,with the exception of an in-service hospitalization for headaches in May 1987,and noted that 1988 medical records reflect that Ms.

The Board found,however,that there is no indication in Ms.

Woods-Calhoun would have sought treatment because of the significance of her disabilities and that her medical records would have contained evidence of that treatment;rather,the Board found that Ms.

362,367 (2005)(noting that the Board has the duty to determine the credibility and probative value of the evidence); see also United States v.

Woods-Calhoun's allegations regarding in-service foot problems,headaches,and diabetes were inconsistent with the record evidence is plausible and not clearly erroneous.

49,52 (1990)( 'A 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.