## Facts

- A veteran sought VA service-connected disability benefits for a back condition he attributed to a fall while carrying a machine gun during service in Korea in 1956.
- Service records, including the separation examination, did not document a back injury; the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) relied heavily on this absence.
- The veteran repeatedly reported the same in-service injury history to treating physicians outside the benefits context.
- Family members submitted lay statements describing observable back problems soon after service.
- The BVA denied service connection, finding the veteran had not shown an in-service back injury and alternatively stating that any such injury was acute and transitory with no residual disability.
- The BVA also stated, without analysis, that the reasonable-doubt doctrine did not warrant granting the claim.

## Issues

1. What standard governs judicial review of BVA findings of material fact under the “clearly erroneous” provision.
2. How the statutory benefit-of-the-doubt rule applies when positive and negative evidence on a material issue is in approximate balance.
3. Whether the BVA satisfied the statutory requirement to provide written reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact and law.

## Decision

- The court held that BVA factual findings may be set aside only if clearly erroneous, meaning review of the entire record leaves a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.
- The court held that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule requires awarding the claim when the evidence on a material issue is in approximate balance.
- The court held that the BVA decision was legally deficient because it failed to explain how it weighed credibility and probative value of the evidence and failed to explain its rejection of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.
- The court retained jurisdiction and remanded to the BVA for further proceedings consistent with these requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of BVA findings of material fact is deferential; the reviewing court may not reweigh evidence and may reverse factfinding only if it is clearly erroneous.
- When the evidence regarding a material issue is in approximate balance, the veteran prevails under the statutory benefit-of-the-doubt rule; reasonable doubt must be within probability, not speculation, and is not a tool to reconcile actual contradictions.
- The BVA must provide a written statement of findings and conclusions, and the reasons or bases for them, sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review, including an explanation of credibility determinations, evidentiary weight, and application (or non-application) of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.
- A failure to provide adequate reasons or bases generally warrants remand for the agency to make and explain the necessary findings in the first instance.

## Conclusion

The court set the framework for veterans benefits adjudication by applying clearly erroneous review to BVA factfinding, requiring that close evidentiary questions be resolved in the veteran’s favor under the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, and mandating reasoned BVA explanations; because the Board’s analysis was inadequate, the case was remanded for a properly explained decision.


Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990)