Ashmore v. Derwinski — BVA must provide adequate reasons or bases and address reasonably raised claims

Jimmy F. Ashmore sought increased ratings for service-connected facial asymmetry, maxillary sinusitis, and residuals of a cerebral concussion, and also asserted that he had a psychiatric disorder secondary to his in-service head injury. The Court affirmed the Board’s denial of an increased rating for facial disfigurement because the Board relied on medical findings describing the deformity as mild, and that factual determination was not clearly erroneous.

The Court vacated and remanded the denials involving maxillary sinusitis and cerebral concussion because the Board failed to make explicit credibility findings regarding Ashmore’s sworn testimony describing headaches, drainage, dizziness, and insomnia. The Court explained that when such testimony could support entitlement under the applicable diagnostic codes, the Board must address credibility and provide adequate reasons or bases for rejecting it. The Court also held that the Board erred by failing to address Ashmore’s expressly raised claim for service connection for a psychological disorder, which the record reasonably presented and which the Board overlooked altogether. The decision underscores both the Board’s reasons-or-bases obligations and its duty to address issues plainly raised by the claimant and the record.

When a veteran’s sworn testimony could support entitlement under the rating criteria, the Board must make explicit credibility findings and provide adequate reasons or bases for rejecting that testimony; the Board must also adjudicate claims expressly or reasonably raised by the record.

Ashmore is a strong reasons-or-bases case: if lay testimony could establish a higher rating, the Board must confront it directly. It also supports remand where the Board ignores an expressly raised service-connection theory.

Practitioners can use Ashmore to challenge Board decisions that dismiss lay evidence with conclusory language or fail to explain why testimony does not satisfy rating criteria. It also helps preserve secondary or direct service-connection issues that the Board failed to discuss, especially where the veteran has clearly raised the issue in correspondence, appeal filings, or hearing testimony.

The Board states it “considered” favorable testimony but does not explain credibility, probative value, or why the testimony does not satisfy the diagnostic code or support service connection.

A veteran testifies to recurrent headaches and drainage that fit the criteria for compensable sinusitis, but the Board denies a higher rating without saying whether it believes the testimony or why it is insufficient. Under Ashmore, that is vulnerable to remand for inadequate reasons or bases.

Cite Ashmore when the Board fails to explain why lay testimony does not meet rating criteria, or when it overlooks a plainly raised secondary-service-connection issue. It is especially useful for arguments targeting conclusory Board language and omitted issue analysis.

Smith v. Derwinski, Hatlestad v. Derwinski, Webster v. Derwinski, Ohland v. Derwinski, Myers v. Derwinski, Payne v. Derwinski, EF v. Derwinski