The veteran sought service connection for bilateral hearing loss, alleging exposure to repeated mortar fire during World War II. He submitted lay statements from fellow service members describing heavy weapons fire and testimony about hearing problems, along with a treating physician’s statement indicating that the hearing loss was consistent with excessive noise exposure in military service. The Board reopened the claim but denied service connection, relying largely on the normal separation examination and the absence of post-service evidence until decades later.

The Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded. It held that the Board erred by failing to apply 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d), which allow a combat veteran to prove in-service incurrence through satisfactory lay or other evidence consistent with combat conditions, subject to rebuttal only by clear and convincing evidence. The Court also emphasized that the Board had to provide adequate reasons or bases for rejecting lay evidence and could not substitute its own medical judgment for independent medical evidence. In light of the physician’s statement, the Court concluded that VA should have provided an audiological examination and further developed the record, including trying to obtain identified records. The decision reinforces that combat-service claims cannot be denied solely for lack of contemporaneous medical records and that VA must actively develop corroborating medical evidence when the claim is well grounded.

For a combat veteran, satisfactory lay evidence may establish in-service incurrence of a combat-related injury or disease under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) if consistent with service conditions, and VA must still provide adequate reasons or bases and necessary development, including relevant records and examination, before denying the claim.

Advocates should use this case to challenge denials that ignore combat lay evidence or rely too heavily on the absence of service treatment records. It also supports requests for a VA examination and additional record development when the claimant has presented competent evidence linking current disability to in-service combat noise exposure.

Swanson is a practical combat-presumption case that pairs § 1154(b) with the duty to assist. It shows that a claimant can establish the in-service event through lay evidence and that VA must then fairly develop and analyze the medical nexus question rather than defaulting to a records-based denial.

Denying a combat-related service-connection claim for lack of contemporaneous medical documentation without applying § 1154(b) or addressing favorable lay evidence.

A Vietnam-era artillery veteran submits buddy statements describing repeated blast exposure and current tinnitus, but the Board denies the claim because service records do not mention hearing loss. Swanson supports remand for failure to apply the combat presumption and to obtain a VA examination.

Cite this case when VA rejects combat lay evidence, omits § 1154(b) analysis, or denies service connection without obtaining a medical examination after a competent suggestion of noise-related hearing loss. It is especially useful in reopening or remand arguments where the record contains supportive buddy statements and a treating clinician’s opinion.

Colvin v. Derwinski, Manio v. Derwinski, Gilbert v. Derwinski, Chipego v. Brown, Sheets v. Derwinski, Smith v. Derwinski, Godwin v. Derwinski, Moore v. Derwinski, Murphy v. Derwinski, White v. Derwinski, Littke v. Derwinski, Fletcher v. Derwinski