## Facts

- Douglas M. Wilson, a Marine Corps veteran with combat service in Vietnam, sought VA service connection for a psychiatric disability.
- Wilson reported traumatic combat experiences and symptoms including intrusive thoughts, nightmares, poor memory, and anxiety-related headaches.
- A VA physician found that Wilson did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD.
- In January 1998, a VA regional office denied service connection for “a psychiatric disability to include PTSD and for memory loss.”
- On appeal, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied service connection.
- In a prior appeal, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the PTSD and memory-loss components; the dispute proceeded only as to a psychiatric disorder other than PTSD.
- On remand, Wilson argued VA notice was deficient because it did not identify the “negative evidence” being weighed against his claim.

## Issues

1. Whether 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) requires VA, in addition to advising what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and who will obtain it, to identify specific “negative evidence” in the record.
2. Whether any asserted defect in VCAA notice required remand absent a showing that the defect prejudiced the claimant.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s judgment sustaining the Board’s denial of service connection.
- The court held that § 5103(a) does not require VA to identify or label particular record materials as “negative evidence.”
- The court further held that Wilson failed to show any notice error was prejudicial under the governing prejudicial-error standard.

## Legal Principles

- Under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), VA must notify the claimant of (1) the information and evidence necessary to substantiate the claim and (2) which evidence the claimant must provide versus what VA will attempt to obtain.
- The VCAA notice duty does not extend to cataloging adverse evidence or distinguishing favorable from unfavorable evidence in the existing record.
- Relief for an asserted VCAA notice deficiency requires a showing of prejudice—i.e., that the error affected the essential fairness of the adjudication or deprived the claimant of a meaningful opportunity to participate.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that VCAA notice requires notice of what is needed to substantiate a claim and the parties’ respective evidentiary responsibilities, not identification of “negative evidence,” and it affirmed because the claimant did not demonstrate prejudicial notice error.


Wilson v. Mansfield, 506 F.3d 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2007)