Gobber v. Derwinski — Duty to assist is limited to specifically identified, facially relevant records; no fishing expedition

The appellant sought to reopen a previously denied hearing-loss claim by submitting an unauthenticated audiogram he said had been made during service and photocopied from his records before discharge. The Board found the document not determinative and refused to reopen. On appeal, the Court held that the audiogram, when considered with the veteran’s statement that it came from his service medical records and dated to 1976, was enough new and material evidence to reopen the claim. The Court also addressed VA’s duty to assist under 38 U.S.C. § 5107, explaining that where a claimant identifies a specific record that could corroborate his account and is controlled by the government, VA should help locate it. At the same time, the Court emphasized that the duty to assist is not a license for a fishing expedition and does not require searching for unspecified evidence that would not matter to the outcome. The Court therefore denied summary affirmance and remanded for VA to assist in locating the records.

VA’s duty to assist requires reasonable efforts to obtain specifically identified, facially relevant records that could substantiate a claim, but it does not require a broad search for unspecified evidence or a fishing expedition.

If a veteran identifies a concrete service record or personnel record that could corroborate a claim, VA may have to search for it; but the claimant still must point to records with enough specificity and apparent relevance to trigger assistance.

Gobber is a leading case on the outer boundary of the duty to assist. It helps advocates frame record requests around specific documents and explains why VA can refuse open-ended searches for evidence that is too vague or speculative.

Treating a limited, specifically identified-record search as an open-ended duty to investigate every possible source of evidence.

A veteran identifies a named in-service audiogram, sick call note, or personnel file entry that likely exists in government custody and could corroborate an in-service event. VA should make reasonable efforts to locate that specific record rather than deny the claim without any search.

Use Gobber to support targeted requests for identified service treatment records, personnel records, or other government-held documents, while keeping the request narrow enough to avoid being characterized as a fishing expedition.

White v. Derwinski, Murphy v. Derwinski, Wood v. Derwinski, Colvin v. Derwinski, Pruitt v. Derwinski