## Facts

- Dennis L. Washington served on active duty in the U.S. Army from February 1959 to January 1961.
- Service treatment records documented treatment for pityriasis rosea (a skin condition) and noted “foot trouble” on the separation examination.
- In 1999, Washington sought service connection for a bilateral foot condition and a skin disorder, asserting the conditions had existed since service; a regional office denied the claims as not well grounded, and Washington did not appeal.
- After enactment of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Washington refiled in 2001; VA provided a notice letter and again denied the claims.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied service connection in December 2002, finding no link between any current disability and service and concluding VA satisfied VCAA duties.
- Washington appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing deficient VCAA notice and inadequate consideration of his lay evidence regarding in-service symptoms and continuity since service.

## Issues

1. Whether VA provided adequate notice under the VCAA concerning the evidence needed to substantiate the claims and the respective responsibilities of VA and the claimant.
2. Whether the Board properly considered and weighed the veteran’s lay statements describing in-service symptoms and continuity of symptomatology.
3. Whether any VCAA notice defect or error in evaluating lay evidence was prejudicial, requiring vacatur and remand.

## Decision

- The court vacated the Board’s denial of service connection for the bilateral foot disorder and skin disorder and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the Board’s handling of VCAA notice and related prejudicial-error analysis was erroneous and not harmless.
- The court held the Board failed to adequately address the veteran’s competent lay evidence and did not provide an adequate explanation of how that evidence was weighed, including any needed credibility finding.

## Legal Principles

- A veteran is competent to testify to factual matters within first-hand knowledge, including observable symptoms and events such as experiencing pain in service, reporting to sick call, limited duty, and similar occurrences.
- Lay evidence of observable symptoms and continuity of symptomatology can be relevant to establishing service connection, even when the claimant is not competent to provide a medical diagnosis.
- The Board must address material lay evidence and provide adequate reasons or bases for accepting or rejecting it; when credibility is material, the Board must make or explain a credibility determination.
- VCAA notice errors require remand when the record does not support a finding that the error was nonprejudicial.

## Conclusion

The court required remand because prejudicial VCAA notice error and inadequate reasons-or-bases—particularly the failure to meaningfully address and assess competent lay evidence of in-service symptoms and continuity—prevented proper adjudication and effective judicial review.


Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005)