## Facts

- A veteran sought service-connected disability compensation for bronchial asthma, claiming onset at the end of active service and treatment shortly after separation.
- The claim was filed roughly forty years after separation and was denied by a VA Regional Office.
- The veteran’s service medical records were unavailable because they had been destroyed in a fire.
- The veteran testified to experiencing asthma symptoms beginning the day before discharge and to receiving post-service treatment within one year by a private physician.
- Acquaintances submitted statements and testified that the veteran had breathing problems after service; some provided specific treatment dates despite not having observed the alleged medical visits.
- Two witnesses testified to direct observations that the veteran had difficulty breathing and appeared in poor health after returning from service.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied service connection, citing inconsistencies and questioning the reliability of precise date recollections decades after the events.

## Issues

1. To what extent is lay testimony competent evidence in a service-connection claim, particularly regarding symptoms, onset, and continuity.
2. Whether the Board properly evaluated the veteran’s and other lay witnesses’ testimony, including by separating competency from credibility and probative weight.

## Decision

- The court held that lay testimony is competent to establish observable symptomatology and other facts within a witness’s personal knowledge.
- The court emphasized that lay witnesses are not competent to provide medical diagnoses or causation opinions requiring specialized medical knowledge.
- The court distinguished competency (a legal admissibility threshold) from credibility and weight (fact-finding determinations for the Board).
- The court indicated that the Board must consider competent lay evidence of observed symptoms, while remaining free to discount it based on credibility concerns such as inconsistency or implausibility.

## Legal Principles

- Lay evidence is competent when it describes observable symptoms or events that a witness personally perceived (e.g., breathing difficulty, wheezing, apparent illness).
- A lay witness’s competence is limited to matters actually observed and within personal knowledge; unobserved medical treatment details and medical etiology are generally outside lay competence.
- Competency is a legal question about whether evidence may be considered; credibility and probative value are factual questions for the adjudicator.
- In claims where official records are missing, lay evidence can be important and may support elements of service connection if competent and found credible.

## Conclusion

Layno establishes that lay testimony may be considered to prove observable symptoms within personal knowledge, but not medical diagnosis or causation; adjudicators must treat competency separately from credibility and weight when evaluating lay evidence in service-connection claims.


Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994)