BVA Case 19-7935: Back

ANALYSIS The appellant asserts that the Board erred by relying on the February 2019 VA opinion, which he alleges is inadequate,and by providing inadequate reasons or bases for denying his claim.

As for the VA opinion,the appellant argues that the examiner provided only data and conclusions,failed to consider the appellant's lay statements, and did not comply with the Board's March 2018 remand order.

The appellant further contends that the Board erred by not considering the evidence under a heightened duty to assist,applicable when service medical records are missing.

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.

Further,it is the Board's responsibility,as factfinder, to determine the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence.

429,433 (1995)(holding that the Board is responsible for assessing the credibility and weight of evidence and that the Court may overturn the Board's decision only if it is clearly erroneous).

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

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.