Credibility Of Veterans Testimony

[broncovet]

In the following case, the credibility of Veterans statements are discussed in some detail:

http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/2b44d935-6394-40f6-868f-2958e3015039/4/doc/KahanaRK_09-3525.pdf#xml=http://cavc-isys1.cavc.adir/isysquery/2b44d935-6394-40f6-868f-2958e3015039/4/hilite/

It seems as the VA is always saying the Veterans evidence has to be corroborated.

Not so, according to this judge who stated,

"In general, the Board cannot determine that a veteran's lay evidence lacks credibility solely

because it is not corroborated by contemporaneous medical records. Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1336"

[Pete53]

Sweet

[broncovet]

I will add that the VA uses this "excuse to deny" frequently: "The SMR's are negative for x condition while in service"

Well gee whiz. This does not necessarily mean the Veteran did not have an injury in service, it could mean many other things. It could mean that he was not in an area where he could be treated for the malady. It could mean the medical records were lost or destroyed. It could even mean the medic treated the Veteran for the injury and did not write it down, for one reason or another, like maybe the medic was being shot at? Or, how about he was treated and the RO shredded the records? But the VA...oh, they assume the Veteran is a liar...

at the RO level.

The Board, and especally the CAVC say, "not so fast" in calling this Vet a liar. If you have been denied for SC based on the statement above, I suggest you thoroughly read what this judge had to say about the credibility and competence of Veterans testimony.

PERSONALLY, my SMR's were negative for me being treated for hearing loss. I did not go to the Doc and say, "Gee doc, shooting those guns was really loud yesterday, and I think I will probably lose my hearing 20 years from now." I would say the odds of that happening and my medical records surviving 20 years are less than 5%.

Or, "Gee Doc. My roomates complained about my snoring keeping them awake. Please note this in my SMR, so I can get service connection for a disorder that has not yet been identified or named yet, called "Obstructive Sleep Apnea".

The chances of that happening are probably 0%. But what will the VA say if you request SC for OSA? SMR's are negative for treatment for OSA. This means Zero. Its an excuse to deny and is not based on applicable VA regulations but on the hope you wont appeal.

[Berta]

Sometimes they say the SMRs are "silent" for evidence that is loud and clear.

It is imperative for every vet to have copy of their SMRs.

"In general, the Board cannot determine that a veteran's lay evidence lacks credibility solely

because it is not corroborated by contemporaneous medical records. Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1336"

Buddy statements however can be viewed differently.

I read a BVA case Monday in which the veteran's buddy statements were completely different from the veterans account of an incident.

The BVA also remarked the veteran's statements had been very inconsistent at C & P s and in other documented VA paperwork.

The BVA gave a long rendition of the facts and evidence for and against the case.

I scrolled to the order and expected to find Entitlement to a acquired psychiatric disorder issue was denied.

But the Order said:

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric

disorder.

I have contacted the BVA ombudsman as I think they forgot to add "is denied".

I dont see how the vet could have been awarded based on the decision and hope the BVA can correct this at their web site or somehow help me figure out why he was granted.

Or maybe I am just going nuts. Here is the decision:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files4/1039268.txt

[Bigred122]

Or, "Gee Doc. My roomates complained about my snoring keeping them awake. Please note this in my SMR, so I can get service connection for a disorder that has not yet been identified or named yet, called "Obstructive Sleep Apnea".

The chances of that happening are probably 0%. But what will the VA say if you request SC for OSA? SMR's are negative for treatment for OSA. This means Zero. Its an excuse to deny and is not based on applicable VA regulations but on the hope you wont appeal.

Broncovet, If you would have requested the above info be put into your files, back then, you would be probably be filing for Blanket party- itis today!!( tried to find a code for it, no luck)lol NO WAY, would have/could have anyone gotten away with complaining about the stuff they do nowadays. With the Co-Ed situations and the freedom to express ones selfs sexuality today is going to open up a whole new bunch of service connected disabilities. to think they were going to issue me an Article 15 for getting a sunburn which back then was considered destroying government property. Now if a woman gets pregnant in the service by another military member is the child considered a residual of the main disabilty or is the child considered secondary condition?Us old timers shake our heads just like our fathers shook theirs when they heard about some of our claims.Twenty years from now I can just imagine what will be allowed to be considered a disability. The only hope they have of surviving the system is to return it to where: If it didn't happen in action, in a war zone it never happened!!! Then maybe there will still be a VA system 20 years from now.

[john999]

I had knee trouble in basic training in 1969. I went to sick call and got an xray. There is no record of this in my SMR's. I spent two weeks in the hospital for some sort of disease when I got back from Vietnam. No record in my SMR's. I went to a army shrink for 6 months at Ft. Stewart before I was discharged. No record of that in my SMR's. I went to dentist to check my TMJ and had two teeth pulled. No record in my SMR's. Most of the medical treatment I got in the military is not in my SMR's.

[carlie]

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric

disorder.

I have contacted the BVA ombudsman as I think they forgot to add "is denied".

I dont see how the vet could have been awarded based on the decision and hope the BVA can correct this at their web site or

somehow help me figure out why he was granted.

Or maybe I am just going nuts. Here is the decision:

http://www.va.gov/ve...es4/1039268.txt

Berta,

Last year I received a BVA decision that contained both granted SC issues and instructions

for remanded issues.

On one of the issues, the Reasons and Bases Section clearly stated SC was warranted and

was fully supported as granted.

Then down in the Order Section, it stated that same issue was denied.

As soon as I received this I contacted the BVA Ombudsman's Office on this.

They had to get my file back from the VARO again and this correction took about

5 1/2 months.

My question remains - how and why in the heck can the SUPPOSEDLY LEGAL EXPERTS

AND JUDGES actually wind up signing decisions, on such an OBVIOUS ERROR ?