BVA Case 20-1421: Back

After reviewing the February 2018 examination,the Board denied the appellant service connection for his conditions based on a lack of nexus between the disabilities and service.

Armstrong's main argument on appeal is that Board gave inadequate reasons and bases for denying service connection for his disabilities because it failed to make credibility findings regarding his testimony at the June 2017 Board hearing.

He contends that the Board's failure to determine the credibility of his description of an in-service injury treated by a doctor undermined the probative value of the February 2018 VA examination the Board relied upon.

He also contends that the Board's failure to make a credibility determination regarding his description of recurrent back pain on and off throughout his military career, and back problems since then, led to the Board's failure to address presumptive service connection based on continued symptoms.

The Secretary disagrees and argues that the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determination that the veteran's conditions were not service connected,and the Secretary argues that an explicit credibility determination was not required because the testimony was not material to the nexus issue at hand.

Assessing the credibility of a veteran's sworn testimony is a function for the Board in the first instance,not this Court.

One obvious reason the Court defers to the Board's assessment of a witness's credibility is that the Board has had the opportunity to observe the witness firsthand,whereas the Court has not.

The Board noted that a VA examiner in 2012 thought the veteran's conditions might be due to aging,and the Board asked: But you're saying some of your other doctors also said that it could be due to the parachute jumping? R.