## Facts

- Donald Buchanan, a U.S. Army veteran, sought VA service connection for a psychiatric disorder later diagnosed as chronic paranoid schizophrenia.
- He served on active duty from January 1973 to December 1975 (honorable discharge) and from May 1980 to June 1982 (other than honorable discharge).
- In 1986, Buchanan filed a claim for service connection; in 1987 the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied it, finding no in-service psychiatric manifestations and that psychiatric disability was not shown until 1978.
- The claim was later reopened and remanded multiple times; Buchanan underwent VA examinations in 1997, 1999, and 2002, all diagnosing chronic paranoid schizophrenia but differing on onset.
- The VA examiners’ opinions on nexus and onset were influenced by the absence of service treatment records or treatment within one year after separation.
- Buchanan submitted lay affidavits describing observable symptoms during service or soon after, and a private medical opinion linking his schizophrenia to service.
- The Board discounted the lay evidence as lacking credibility “absent confirmatory clinical records,” relied most heavily on the 2002 VA examination rejecting nexus based on missing documentation, discounted the private opinion because it relied on lay statements, and denied service connection (Sept. 5, 2002).
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed; Buchanan appealed to the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board and Veterans Court applied an incorrect legal standard by treating lay evidence of observable symptoms as not credible solely because it lacked contemporaneous medical corroboration.
2. Whether the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s acceptance of that standard as a legal interpretation of statutes and regulations.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit held that the Board and Veterans Court applied a legally erroneous rule by rejecting competent lay evidence solely due to the absence of contemporaneous medical records.
- The court explained that governing statutes and regulations allow competent lay evidence, by itself, to establish elements of service connection in appropriate circumstances.
- The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s judgment and remanded for reconsideration of all evidence, including the lay statements, under the correct legal standard.

## Legal Principles

- Competent lay evidence may be sufficient to support a service-connection award even without contemporaneous medical documentation.
- VA adjudicators may consider the absence of contemporaneous medical records when weighing evidence, but may not treat that absence as the sole basis to find lay evidence not credible.
- When the Veterans Court affirms a Board decision using an incorrect construction of statutes or regulations governing evidence, the Federal Circuit may review and correct that legal error and remand for application of the proper standard.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit required reconsideration of the claim because VA decisionmakers cannot impose a categorical corroboration requirement that discredits lay testimony solely for lack of contemporaneous medical records; lay evidence must be evaluated under the statutory and regulatory framework that permits service connection to be proved through competent observations.


Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)