BVA Case 96-1214: Ptsd

In the May 28, 1996, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied service connection for wounds of the lower extremities, frostbite of the feet, a skin disorder of the feet, hearing loss in the left ear, a low back disorder, and a bilateral eye disorder and denied a compensable rating for a fracture of the right third toe and for degenerative changes and narrowing of the right-shoulder joint space.

Well Groundedness of Service-Connection Claims The Board found, without analysis, "that the [appellant's] claims are 'well grounded'".

§ 1110 generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the asserted in-service injury or disease and the current disability.

303(b) (1998) by (a) evidence that a condition was "noted" during service or during an applicable presumption period; (b) evidence showing postservice continuity of symptomatology; and (c) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the postservice symptomatology.

For purposes of determining whether a claim is well grounded, the credibility of the evidence in support of the claim is generally presumed.

, current disability and medical nexus); rather, the first sentence of section 1154(b) relates only to incurrence -- that is, "what happened [in service]" (Caluza, 7 Vet.

302, 305 (1998) ("we hold again today, that a combat veteran who has successfully established the in-service occurrence or aggravation of an injury pursuant to [section] 1154(b) and Collette, must still submit sufficient evidence of a causal nexus between that in-service event and his or her current disability[,] as required by Caluza"); Velez, 11 Vet.

§ 1154(b) relate[s] only to the question of service incurrence, 'that is, what happened then--not the questions of either current disability or nexus to service, as to both of which competent medical evidence is generally required'") (quoting Caluza, supra)); Cohen (Douglas) v.