BVA Case 21-6187: Ptsd

The Board also determined that the appellant had submitted new and material evidence,and therefore the Board reopened a previously denied claim for benefits for malaria.

In a January 2004 administrative decision,VA advised the appellant that,because VA had already determined that the character of his discharge was a bar to benefits and that decision had become final,he needed to submit new and material evidence.

4 In September 2016,relying primarily on the private psychiatrist's May 2016 report,the Board found that there were compelling circumstances to warrant the appellant's prolonged unauthorized absence under section 5303(a)and 3.

Accordingly,the Board determined that the character of the appellant's discharge was not a bar to benefits.

He asserts that the Board did not consider whether 5 VA had carried its burden of submitting credible evidence to prove that [the Agency]complied with the law before recognizing the []SDVA as [the appellant's]representative.

The appellant next asserts that the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that his June 2003 application for benefits for PTSD was finally denied .

156(b) to determine whether that evidence was new and material,and (3)the Board conceded that failure in the decision on appeal.

Moreover,he contends that the Board did not consider whether VA at that time had � or should have � attempted to obtain Dr.