BVA Case 16-3447: Ptsd

In May 2014,the Board denied service connection for PTSD and remanded the GERD claim.

,but opined that the condition was less likely than not related to service because there was no evidence of a chronic abdominal or esophageal condition in service and no evidence of treatment,including with over-the-counter medications,until 2008,R.

Renteria timely appealed the denial of service connection for GERD,and the Court in November 2015 granted a JMPR specifying that the Board had not adequately assessed the credibility of the lay evidence of record.

Instead,the Board found most probative the April 2014 VA medical examination that concluded that GERD was less likely than not related to in-service gastrointestinal complaints.

Renteria first argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its assessment of the credibility and probative value of favorable evidence.

Specifically,he asserts 6 that the Board improperly discounted his lay statements of being attacked in a blanket party as inconsistent,did not adequately explain how his and his wife's demeanor at the hearing impugned the credibility of their testimony,and otherwise failed to lay a proper foundation for finding lay evidence of behavior changes not probative.

To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of evidence,account for evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide reasons for rejecting any material evidence favorable to the claimant.

When assessing the credibility of lay evidence,the Board may consider factors such as facial plausibility,bias,self-interest,and consistency with other evidence of record.