BVA Case 90-0818: Psychiatric

In a July 1988 decision, the RO determined that the veteran had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim because no medical records had shown a right-leg injury during service and that, "[i]n the absence of complete clinical records showing diagnosis of or treatment during service for the veteran's claimed conditions, the statements of others are insufficient to substantiate the claim for service incurrence".

The Board stated that the Court had directed the Board to readjudicate on the basis of all the evidence and material of record, that the claim was well grounded, and that there was no duty to assist the veteran because he had not indicated that there were additional records to be obtained.

The Board noted that the 1970 claim was for a wound to the right foot, whereas the veteran's current claim was for a wound to the "anterior midtibial" area.

Martinez, the Board found that it was "not an original document, [did] not contain any clinical findings descriptive or characteristic of residuals of a shrapnel wound", and was "of little probative value".

Vito, the Board noted that he had stated that the wound might have occurred "after" World War II.

Abena stating that he had treated the veteran for a wound in 1946, the Board noted that the 1945 physical, the 1947 affidavit, and the 1970 report from Dr.

As to the lay statements, the Board noted that some stated that the veteran had been treated only at the battalion aid station, while others reported that he had later been transferred to Camp Spencer.

The Board concluded that the evidence submitted by the veteran was not credible, and therefore was not "satisfactory" under section 1154(b), in that the other evidence "clearly rebutted" the incurrence of any SFW to the right leg during service.