Charles Reynolds sought an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for bilateral hearing loss after VA had previously denied the claim in 1991. In 2020, he submitted a supplemental claim and additional service personnel records, including combat awards. VA later granted service connection based on his MOS, conceded combat noise exposure, and a positive VA nexus opinion, but assigned an effective date tied to the 2020 reopen. The Board denied an effective date earlier than May 21, 2020, reasoning that the award was not based in part on the newly submitted service personnel record referencing an Army Commendation Medal with V device.

The Court held that the phrase “based all or in part on” in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3) does not require that newly associated service department records be expressly cited in the award decision or substantially relied on on the face of that decision. Instead, the regulation may apply when those records form a link in the chain of reasoning leading to the ultimate award, including by supporting development of evidence such as a nexus opinion. Because the Board’s analysis did not show whether it applied that standard, the Court found inadequate reasons or bases and remanded for readjudication.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(3), an earlier effective date may be assigned when newly associated service department records were a causal link in the award of benefits following reconsideration under § 3.156(c)(1); the records need not be expressly cited in the grant so long as they formed part of the reasoning or evidentiary chain supporting the award.

Boards must analyze whether new service department records actually helped produce the grant, not just whether the final rating decision named them. This matters because records that support combat exposure, corroborate an in-service event, or prompt development of a favorable nexus opinion may trigger § 3.156(c)(3) earlier-effective-date relief.

This case gives veterans a stronger path to earlier effective dates when newly obtained service records were part of the proof structure that led VA to grant service connection. It also warns VA and the Board against using a narrow, citation-focused analysis that ignores how the records influenced reconsideration and the eventual award.

Inadequate Reasons or Bases [Procedural Error]

A veteran reopens a denied hearing loss claim and submits newly obtained personnel records confirming combat exposure. VA later grants service connection after obtaining a favorable nexus opinion, but the award letter only mentions the veteran’s MOS and not the new records. Under Reynolds, the Board must still decide whether those records were part of the causal chain supporting the grant for purposes of § 3.156(c)(3).

Use Reynolds to argue that newly obtained service records need only materially contribute to the path to the grant, not appear as an explicit cited basis in the rating decision. It is especially useful where the records supported conceded in-service exposure, helped obtain a nexus opinion, or otherwise influenced the reconsideration outcome.

Blubaugh v. McDonald, Emerson v. McDonald, George v. Shulkin, Flores-Vazquez v. McDonald