BVA Case 23-6061: Back

In May 2015,the appellant sought to reopen his claim,but the RO determined that he had not submitted new and material evidence.

In the alternative,the appellant maintains that vacatur and remand are warranted because the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its decision.

In this regard, he contends that,because his service records are unavailable,the Board had a heightened duty to explain its findings and was required to carefully consider the application of the benefit of the doubt.

He asserts that,in the decision on appeal,the Board proffered a conclusory finding that '[t]he benefit of the doubt doctrine .

He also avers that the Board did not explain why it would have expected his trips to the DMZ to be recorded in his personnel records or in the unit histories VA was able to obtain,and therefore the Board failed to establish a proper foundation for relying on the absence of evidence to deny his claim.

The appellant next argues that,given the unavailability of his records,VA also had a heightened duty to assist him,but the Board failed to consider whether VA met its obligation in that regard.

Turning to the matter of direct service connection,the appellant contends that the Board did not consider whether his diabetes was directly related to herbicide exposure in service,instead finding only that there was no 'causal relationship between the claimed disability and any other incident of active service.

Regarding the Board's reasons or bases, the Secretary maintains that (1) VA discharged its duty to assist in a heighten[ed]fashion considering the volume of attempts it made to substantiate [the appellant's]lay statements, id.