BVA Case 23-0076: Psychiatric

In September 2015,the appellant underwent VA examinations for his back and neck;the examiner provided negative nexus opinions,noting in part that the record shows that the appellant injured his wrist after a fall, not in a motor vehicle accident, and that there was no record of any in-service back or neck injury.

The Board denied entitlement to disability compensation for back and neck conditions in an April 1,2020,decision,finding the appellant's report that he sustained back and neck injuries in service less credible than the contemporaneous service records.

At a minimum,the Board found that one would expect him to complain of neck or back pain at some point,noting that the appellant went to eight follow-up appointments for his wrist,yet he did not report any back or neck pain,and his separation medical examination report indicated a normal musculoskeletal system.

The Court determined that the Board failed to address favorable evidence, including the appellant's explanation for why he did not report a motor vehicle accident or injuries to his back and neck during service.

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board failed to lay a foundation for treating the absence of evidence of a motor vehicle accident in his service records as substantive negative evidence;he avers that silence in the record actually supports [his] explanation:that [the servicemembers involved]covered up that there was an accident,[the corpsman]did not address all of his injuries except the most obvious,and [they]made up a story that he fell to explain his broken wrist.

He next contends that the Board failed to consider pertinent evidence when it found that his mother's December 2013 letter and the June 20,1969, calendar entry were not credible.

The appellant further argues that the Board failed to substantially comply with the Court's February 2022 remand directives, which required the Board to consider his reasons for not reporting the motor vehicle accident.

He maintains that the Board erred in dismissing the opinion because the physician relied on the appellant's statements;overlooked that the private physician related the appellant's disabilities to multiple in-service injuries;and failed to consider whether his work in the paint and body shop caused his disabilities.