BVA Case 20-3569: Ptsd

The spine examiner diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the spine,noted that the appellant's statements that he fell and injured his back in service and has complained of pain since military service [were] being considered in rendering [his] opinion, and provided a negative nexus opinion.

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred when it relied on his separation report of medical history to find not credible his assertions that he experienced symptoms of his lumbar spine disability and psychiatric disorder in service.

Specifically, he contends that the Board failed to lay a proper foundation before relying on the absence of evidence for its credibility determination.

Additionally,the appellant asserts that the Board failed to make any findings regarding the duty to assist and that VA failed to satisfy its duty to assist because VA did not obtain,or attempt to obtain, records related to the 1970 VA back treatment that he mentioned at his March 2018 Board hearing.

The Secretary asserts that the Board's credibility determinations were not based on the absence of evidence but,rather,on the appellant's affirmative denial of problems as indicated in his report of medical history at separation.

As for the appellant's duty to assist argument,the Secretary contends that VA sought information from the appellant pursuant to the Board's July 2018 remand order,but because the appellant failed to respond,VA had no additional obligations to obtain the records.

In his reply brief, the appellant,in part, 3 argues that the Secretary's explanation for how VA satisfied its duty to assist in obtaining records related to his back disability cannot make up for the Board's failure to do so in the first instance.

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