BVA Case 18-2837: Psychiatric

Because the Board did not ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist and failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons or bases for denying appellant's claims, we will set aside the Board's decision and remand these matters to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the Board erred in finding that VA satisfied its duty to assist,because it failed to ensure that his service records were obtained.

In addition, appellant contends that the Board erred in finding that he had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his skin disorder and loss of vision claims where evidence of record showed treatment for a skin condition and a private doctor commented on his eye condition's relationship to service.

The Secretary concedes that remand is required because in declining to reopen appellant's skin disorder claim,the Board failed to account for evidence of a current skin disability.

Duty To Assist and Service Records VA must make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit.

6 We review the Board's determination that VA satisfied its duty to assist under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

8 A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

The Board failed to note that the June 2013 formal finding discussed only the appellant's period of service from January 1991 to July 1991 but said nothing of his earlier period of service from January 1983 to April 1983.