BVA Case 22-0968: Back

The Board found the veteran not competent to provide a link between her current low back disability and her service, but did not address her March 2017 Notice of Disagreement reporting treatment for low back pain on active duty,R.

The Court also found that the Board failed to reconcile Ms.

Hill's migraine headaches,the Court found that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for selecting DC 8100 to evaluate her headaches by analogy.

In the January 2022 decision on appeal,the Board denied service connection for a low back disability,finding that the veteran first reported back pain in August 1997 following a work-related injury many years after service.

The Board noted that the veteran denied a history of recurrent back pain at the June 1985 air evacuation examination and April 1986 Reserve 3 examination and found that her lay statements as to continuity of back symptoms since service, particularly a May 2019 statement, 2 were inconsistent and therefore not credible.

The Board's determinations regarding service connection and the appropriate degree of disability are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.

A factual finding 'is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of evidence,account for evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide reasons for its rejection of material evidence favorable to the claimant.