The appellant sought service connection for Tourette’s syndrome and paranoid schizophrenia. The Court held that the Board clearly erred in finding Tourette’s syndrome was not present in service because the full record, including the veteran’s service medical history, separation report, lay corroboration, and an unrebutted VA psychiatrist’s opinion, established in-service onset. The Court emphasized that a condition need not have been formally diagnosed during service when all the evidence shows it was incurred there, and that the Board could not reject the medical opinion merely because the military records lacked the same diagnosis.

On the psychiatric-disorder claim, the Court found multiple legal defects. The Board had recognized new and material evidence but did not properly reopen and reevaluate the entire record under the governing standard. It also failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for rejecting the favorable medical opinion, did not address internal inconsistencies in the service records, and relied on its own unsupported medical conclusions. The Court further noted gaps in the record and held that the duty to assist required obtaining additional relevant records. The Board decision was reversed in part and remanded for readjudication consistent with the opinion.

Service connection may be granted when the evidence as a whole establishes in-service incurrence, even if the condition was not formally diagnosed during service; the Board must base medical conclusions on independent evidence, provide adequate reasons or bases, and fully develop and readjudicate reopened claims under the correct standard.

A favorable post-service medical opinion plus corroborating service evidence can win direct service connection even when the in-service record used a different diagnosis or no diagnosis at all. Advocates should also challenge Board decisions that reject medical evidence without a valid rationale or that fail to apply the proper reopening and readjudication framework.

Hanson is a strong authority for arguing that VA cannot deny service connection by focusing only on the absence of an in-service label when the evidence shows the disease process was already present. It is also useful for reasons-or-bases and duty-to-assist arguments, especially where the Board ignores favorable medical opinion evidence or fails to obtain relevant records.

Improper Rejection of Medical Opinion [Evidentiary Errors]

A veteran is diagnosed after discharge with a chronic neurological or psychiatric condition, and a treating specialist opines that the symptoms began during service while service records show related complaints or abnormal behavior but not the exact later diagnosis. Hanson supports arguing that service connection should be granted based on the record as a whole.

Cite Hanson to support in-service incurrence based on post-service medical nexus evidence, to attack Board reliance on the absence of an in-service diagnosis, and to argue that the Board cannot reject favorable medical evidence without independent support. It is also useful when seeking remand for inadequate reasons or bases and incomplete record development.