BVA Case 17-0442: Back

In February 2012,the RO did not reopen the appellant's claims because the evidence was not new and material.

]Therefore,it is a[t]least as likely as not that the etiology and nature of the talonavicular joint degenerative joint disease related to a pre[]existing condition because of the credibility of the lay statements that accounted for right foot trauma and the observation of marked,post-traumatic degenerative changes in the right talonavicular joint.

5 On February 8,2017,the Board denied the appellant's disability compensation claim for a right ankle disorder.

ANALYSIS Generally,the appellant argues for reversal because the Board failed to apply the presumption of soundness under 38 U.

First,the appellant asserts that the Board erred in finding clear and unmistakable evidence of a preexisting injury without an explanation;applied the incorrect standard; relied on medical reports that were not based on any contemporaneous evidence of a preservice injury;and failed to consider positive lay evidence.

On the other hand,remand is the appropriate remedy where the Board failed to ensure proper development of the claim or the record is inadequate for adjudication purposes.

Establishing that a disability is service connected for purposes of entitlement to VA disability compensation generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability,(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.

Whether the record establishes entitlement to service connection is a finding of fact,which the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.