WPC) (q6\kr-hMc\;iW)J#`șQ5Wp)8@`Q1ɚȻ@pԐv΍RAOuyOn؅Ԓfn4X#^V,|RӝMи O-iQڕ( ʿe`|(5 ҶcV60I8! q Jw.8wYDc\e:TpsCj!m\f۶_ c ̓ѦYLG V: e-Mu5kB0`«fD37|_+=7#k 2}~WC %U> 0(U-2w@H 0~ 0x 0k~ 0k4T 0h 0~ 0 1mQ  0 0 0W 0 N 0X 01v 0C 0V 0@ 0 0 0W 0 0 0 0j 0  0z 0*  1 0= 0F 0P7 0 1` 0gi% 0C"U(N" B#E<# 0&># 0d# 0 $ 0$ 0&l%n%?& ( ((UN(UN#) q) w)w)w) }) ) )X)\  `&TmsRmnLegal Pro($*\  p`TmsRmnPro {DV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..Z/#Z/#V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..# e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)3|xzh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..^  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. R& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fp2Doc InitInitialize Document Style#S $      I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S%&'    A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0 jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS )  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1xFZ2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper +Ka:; _ ,(  XQXXXQXX>./'*d>>./'*d>\ 1\ 2\ 3\ 4\ 5\ 6\ 7\ 8\ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28"  .+ '++"(2B$ !  (@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular d&$2PB0HeadingChapter Heading@..  2I.3  Ԁ   Ԉ tO 4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers.. 2I.3  Ԁ  0..L=6SubheadingSubheading 2A.3  ..    &$1)\  `&TmsRmnLegal ProXXt\  PPUXP   ' MEREDA0MEREDA .   (@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(@ Z 6Times New Roman RegularȿH !  7XXdd7 e     -XXXX=(=XXdd=% B @ @@  UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFVETERANSAPPEALS   @%No.971831   ` @^^BarneyR.McCartt,Appellant, `  @)v.@!TogoD.West,Jr.,@ SecretaryofVeteransAffairs,Appellee. `  М  OnAppealfromtheBoardofVeterans'Appeals(DecidedFebruaryFebruary8,1999񀀀% = 񀀀)̛̜r  BarneyR.McCartt,prose. h  p   JohnH.Thompson,ActingGeneralCounsel;RonGar% 8 vin,AssistantGeneralCounsel;Mary P М% @ % < AnnFlynn,ActingDeputyAssistantGeneralCounsel;andRalphG.Daviswereonthepleadings @ fortheappellee.  ̜  BeforeNEBEKER,ChiefJudge,andKRAMERandHOLDAWAY,Judges. ` @*@@*  KRAMER,Judge:Theappellant,VietnameraveteranBarneyR.McCartt,appealsa @ July30,1997,decisionoftheBoardofVeterans'Appeals(BVAorBoard)that(1)remandedaclaimforanincreaseddisabilityratingforposttraumaticstressdisorder(PTSD)(claim1);(2)determinedthataclaimforserviceconnectionforaskinconditionsecondarytoexposuretoAgentOrangewasnotwellgrounded(claim2);and(3)determinedthatnewandmaterialevidencehadnotbeensubmittedtoreopenadisallowedclaimforserviceconnectionforheartdisease(claim3).Record(R.)at3,15,17.Theappellanthasfiledaninformalbrief,andtheSecretaryhasfiledamotionforsummaryaffirmanceinlieuofabrief.Thisappealistimely,andtheCourthasjurisdictionpursuantto38U.S.C.7252(a)and7266(a).Forthereasonsthatfollow,theCourtwillvacatethedecisionoftheBoardwithrespecttoclaims2and3,andwillremandthosematters.TheCourtwillalsoϜdismisstheappellant'sappealwithrespecttoclaim1#X(=XX-Xw#-XXXX(=. -P(0   I.RELEVANTBACKGROUND   h Ӝ  TheappellantservedonactivedutyintheU.S.ArmyfromMay1962toFebruary1977,includingserviceinVietnamfromFebruary1966toMay1967.R.at7882.Theappellant'sservicemedicalrecordsreflecttreatmentforaprobablefungalinfectioninJanuaryandApril1969(R.at323),dermatitisofunknownetiologyinJanuary1970(R.at314),andarashinNovember1970(R.at315).AccordingtothereportsfromexaminationsconductedinMarch1971(R.at310),April1975(R.at61),andNovember1976(R.at72),theappellant'sskinwasnormal.Also,inthereportfromaVAmedicalexamination,datedinMay1977,theappellant'sskinwasnotedtohave"[n]olesions."R.at88.  AVAregionaloffice(RO),inSeptember1981,deniedaclaimforserviceconnectionforresidualsofexposuretoAgentOrange.R.at121.TheROinitiallystatedthat,althoughtheappellant'sexposuretoAgentOrange"ha[d]notbeendefinitelyestablished...suchexposure[wouldbe]conceded."R.at121.TheROdetermined,however,thattherewas"nocausalrelationshipyetestablishedbetweenherbicideexposureandanyconditionnowdiagnosed."R.at121.InOctober1994,theappellantwasnotifiedthattheROhadbeen"controlling"hisclaimforserviceconnectionforresidualsofexposuretoAgentOrangependingthepublicationoffinalregulationsregardingtheadjudicationofsuchclaims.R.at176.Hewasfurtherinformedthat,ifhewishedtopursuehisclaim,hemustspecifythecurrentdisabilitiesforwhichhewasseekingserviceconnection.R.at176.Theappellantrespondedthathewasseekingserviceconnectionfor,interalia,arash,"blotches,"andboilsbasedonexposuretoAgentOrange.R.at176.InaletterdatedinNovember1994,Dr.H.HarperKerr,Thoracic&CardiovascularSurgeonChairman,MedicalDivision,andL.EarlStapleton,Ph.D.,ClinicalPsychologist,Chairman,MentalHealthDivision,AmericanDisabledVeteransQualityofLifeClinic,WaltonBeach,Florida,statedthattheappellanthadbeen"muchexposedtoAgentOrange"duringhistoursofdutyinVietnamandthatsuchexposurecouldbe"proven."R.at182,185.Thedoctorsfurtherstatedthattheappellanthashad"continuousskinproblemswithrashandotherdisruptivesymptoms"andopined,#X:XX-XC #-XCXXX:inessence, &"2 thatheshouldbeawardedserviceconnectionforhisskinconditionbecauseitisattributabletoexposuretoAgentOrange.R.at18285.#X:XX-XC#-XCXXX:Ԁ )$6   AVAcompensationandpensionexaminationforskinwasconductedinMarch1995.R.at219,259.Atthattime,theappellantrelatedtotheexaminerthathehadhadaskinconditionsince ;,': hisserviceinVietnam,consistingofred,rough,andirritatedareasofskin"thatareworseinthesummertime."R.at259.Afteranexamination,theexaminerreportedthattheappellanthad"afewscatteredareasoffollicularpustules"and"anoldfungalinfectionofthetoenails,"butnotedthattherewere"noareasofchloracne,whichisthoughttobecharacteristicofAgentOrangeexposure."R.at260.Theexaminerfurtherstatedthattheappellantshould"[p]ossibly...bereexaminedinthehotweatheratthetimehesayshisskinismostuncomfortable."R.at260.InApril1995,theappellantsubmittedtotheROacopyofanapplicationfordisabilitybenefitsundertheAgentOrangeVeteranPaymentProgram.R.at222.  AnROdecision,datedinAugust1995,deniedserviceconnectionforaskinconditionsecondarytoexposuretoAgentOrange.R.at33942.TheappellantsubmittedaNoticeofDisagreement(R.at347);aStatementoftheCase(SOC)wasissued(R.at35769);andtheappellantsubmittedasubstantiveappeal(R.at384).AtahearingbeforetheRO,inJuly1996,theappellanttestifiedthataskincondition,manifestedbyredblotches,scalypatches,blisters,boils,itchiness,andsoreness,haditsonsetin1968(R.at41417)andthathehadbeenexposedtoAgentOrangewhileservinginVietnam(R.at415).ASupplementalSOCwasissued(R.at422-28).  IntheJuly30,1997,BVAdecisionhereonappeal,theBoarddeterminedthattheappellant'sclaimforaskindisordersecondarytoexposuretoAgentOrangewasnotwellgrounded.R.at3,8.Insettingforththelawsapplicableinthepresentcase,theBoardnoted,interalia,that[a]veteranwho,duringactivemilitary,naval,orairservice,servedintheRepublicofVietnamduringtheVietnamera,shallbepresumedtohavebeenexposedduringsuchservicetoanherbicideagent(AgentOrange),unlessthereisaffirmativeevidencetoestablishthattheveteranwasnotexposedtoanysuchagentduringthatϜservice.R.at5(citing38C.F.R.3.307(a)(6)(iii)(1996)).#X:XX-XC#-XCXXX:ԀInthisregard,theBoardalsostatedthatthe "* appellanthad"mettheregulatorypresumptionofactiveserviceintheRepublicofVietnamduringtheVietnamera."R.at7.#X:XX-XC#-XCXXX:ԀIndeterminingwhethertheappellanthadsubmittedawellgrounded j% . claim,theBoardfirstdeterminedthattherewasnoevidencethattheappellanthaddeveloped,duringserviceorwithinoneyearfollowinghisdischargefromservice,askinconditionenumeratedinϜ38C.F.R.3.309(e)andthathe,therefore,wasnotentitledtopresumptiveserviceconnection.R.at7.TheBoardthenconsideredwhethertheappellanthadsubmittedawell-groundedclaimfordirectserviceconnection.#X:XX-XC#-XCXXX:TheBoarddeterminedthat,intheabsenceof"#X:XX-XCG"#-XCXXX:medicalevidenceofaskin ;,'8 conditionrelatedtoexposuretoAgentOrange,"theappellant'sclaimwasnotwellgrounded.R.at78.#X:XX-XC"#-XCXXX:ԀTheBoardfurtherdeterminedthattheappellanthadnotsubmittednewandmaterialevidence  ] toreopenaclaimforserviceconnectionforheartdisease.R.at14.Finally,theBoardremandedtotheROforfurtherdevelopment#X:XX-XC##-XCXXX:Ԁtheappellant'sclaimforanincreaseddisabilityratingforPTSD.  R.at1720.Thisappealfollowed.  II.ANALYSIS   .  m%  A.Claim1%  Theappellant,inhisinformalbrief,assertsthatheisappealingaclaimforanincreaseddisabilityratingforPTSD(claim1).BecauseafinaldecisionhasnotbeenissuedbytheBVAwithrespecttoclaim1,whichwasremandedbytheBoardinthedecisiononappeal(R.at1719),theCourtdoesnothavejurisdictiontoreviewclaim1onthisappeal.See38U.S.C.7252(a),  7266(a);Hamptonv.Gober,10Vet.App.481,483(1997);InreQuigley,1Vet.App.1(1990).#X:XX-XC$#-XCXXX: ^ Л  B.Claim2 @ L(  Althoughtheappellant'sclaimforserviceconnectionforresidualsofexposuretoAgentOrangewasdeniedbytheROin1981(R.at121),hisclaimwasreadjudicateddenovobyVAinAugust1995,apparentlyduetothepromulgationofnewregulationsregardingsuchclaims(seeR.at   176,33942).SeeSpencerv.Brown,4Vet.App.283,289(1993)(holdingthat"section7104(b) /" doesnotprecludedenovoadjudicationofaclaim,onessentiallythesamefactsasapreviouslyandfinallydeniedclaim,whereaninterveningchangeinlaworregulationhascreatedanewbasisofentitlementtoabenefit"),aff'd,17F.3d368(Fed.Cir.1994)#X:XX-XC(#-XCXXX:;seealsoRoutenv.West,142 F( F.3d1434(Fed.Cir.1998)(underappropriatecircumstancesinterveningchangeinapplicablelawmayentitleveterantoconsiderationofclaim,eventhoughclaimisbasedonessentiallysamefactsasthoseinpreviouslyadjudicatedclaim),aff'gRoutenv.Brown,10Vet.App.183(1997).#X:XX-XC{+#-XCXXX:The  $]. Court,inreviewingtheBoard'sdeterminationwithrespecttoclaim2,willthusconsiderthisanoriginalclaimratherthanaclaimtoreopen.  Pursuantto38U.S.C.5107(a),theappellanthastheburdenofsubmittingevidenceϜsufficienttojustifyabeliefthathisclaimofentitlementtoserviceconnectioniswellgrounded.See )$6 МRobinettev.Brown,8Vet.App.69,73(1995).Aclaimiswellgroundedifitis"plausible."Murphy *.&8 v.Derwinski,1Vet.App.78,81(1990).#X:XX-XC$-#-XCXXX:Foraclaimtobewellgrounded,theregenerallymustbe#X:XX-XC/#-XCXXX: ;,': (1)medicalevidenceofacurrentdisability;(2)medicalor,incertaincircumstances,layevidenceofinserviceincurrenceoraggravationofadiseaseorinjury;and(3)medicalevidenceofanexusbetweentheclaimedinservicediseaseorinjuryandthepresentdiseaseorinjury.SeeCaluza j v.Brown,7Vet.App.498,506(1995),aff'dpercuriam,78F.3d604(Fed.Cir.1996)(table);see  МalsoEppsv.Gober,126F.3d1464,1468(Fed.Cir.1997),cert.denied,118S.Ct.2348(1998). $ t Pursuantto38U.S.C.1116and38C.F.R.3.307(a)#X:XX-XC%0#-XCXXX:Ԁand#X:XX-XC3#-XCXXX:3.309(e)(1998),inthecaseofa    Vietnameraveteran,#X:XX-XCN3#-XCXXX:Ԁnodirectevidenceastotheinserviceincurrenceandmedicalnexusprongs  .  isnecessarywhentheprovisionsofthosesectionsaresatisfied.SeeBrockv.Brown,10Vet.App. ;  155,162(1997)#X:XX-XC3#-XCXXX:.#X:XX-XC 5#-XCXXX:Thedeterminationwhetheraclaimiswellgroundedissubjecttodenovoreview   bythisCourt.SeeRobinette,8Vet.App.at74.#X:XX-XCP5#-XCXXX:ԛ E  #X:XX-XC.6#-XCXXX:  #X:XX-XC6#-XCXXX:Becausethereisnoevidenceofrecordthattheappellantdevelopedaskinconditionthat R  wouldbepresumptivelyserviceconnectedunder38U.S.C.1116and38C.F.R.3.307andϜ3.309(e),theCourtconcludesthat,basedontheevidencepresentlyofrecord,theappellanthasnotsubmittedawell-groundedclaimforpresumptiveserviceconnection.SeeBrock,supra.#X:XX-XC6#-XCXXX:ԀHowever, i astheBoardcorrectlynoted,theappellantcouldalsoestablishonadirectbasisserviceconnection#X:XX-XC8#-XCXXX:foraskinconditionbasedonexposuretoAgentOrange.#X:XX-XCx9#-XCXXX:SeeCombeev.Brown,34F.3d1039(Fed. #s Cir.1994).Withregardtodirectserviceconnection,theCourtnotesthattheappellanthasstatedthatsince1968hehashadaskincondition,manifestedbyboils,blotches,arash,soreness,anditchiness.R.at176,259,41417;seeFalzonev.Brown,8Vet.App.398,403(1995)(indicatingthat :$ medicalevidencemaynotbenecessaryforconditionsthatlendthemselvestolayobservation).Furthermore,theCourt#X:XX-XC9#-XCXXX:concludesthattheBoarderredindeterminingthattherewasnomedical D( evidencelinkingetiologicallytheappellant'scurrentskinconditiontoexposuretoAgentOrange.IntheirNovember1994letter,Drs.KerrandStapletonessentiallyopinedthattheappellanthashad"continuousskinproblemswithrashandotherdisruptivesymptoms"#X:XX-XCB<#-XCXXX:attributabletoAgentOrange  $[. exposure.R.at18485.#X:XX-XC=#-XCXXX:Presumedcredibleforpurposesofdeterminingwhethertheappellant's h% 0 claimiswellgrounded,thisletterconstitutesmedicalevidenceofanexusbetweenAgentOrangeexposureandtheappellant'scurrentskincondition.#X:XX-XC>#-XCXXX:Ԁ#X:XX-XC?#-XCXXX:SeeSavagev.Gober,10Vet.App.488,496 "(r#4 (1997)(forthresholddeterminationofwellgroundedness,evidenceinsupportofclaimispresumedcredibleandisnotsubjecttoweighing);#X:XX-XC?#-XCXXX:Robinette,8Vet.App.at76(forpurposesofdetermining *,&8 whetherclaimiswellgrounded,presumptionofcredibilityappliesunlessassertionisinherently 9,': incredibleorbeyondcompetenceofpersonmakingassertion;inmeritsadjudicationthatfollows,presumptiondoesnotapplyandBoardmustdetermineweightandcredibilityofevidence);cf.Swannv.Brown,5Vet.App.229,233(1993)(CourtfoundthatBoard,inadjudicatingclaimon j merits,wasjustifiedinattributinglittleweighttodoctors'opinions#X:XX-XCA#-XCXXX:basedonhistoryrelatedby  Мappellant).  BecausetheBoard,inthepresentcase,foundthattheappellant'sclaimfordirectserviceconnectionwasnotwellgroundedbasedontheabsenceofmedicalnexusevidence,itisnotclearwhethertheBoardconsideredtheappellanttohavesatisfiedtheincurrenceprongofCaluza,supra ;  М(wellgroundedclaimrequires,interalia,evidenceofinserviceincurrenceoraggravation).#X:XX-XCC#-XCXXX:   МHowever,theBoard,initssummaryofthelawsapplicableinthepresentcase,statedthat"[a]veteranwho...servedintheRepublicofVietnamduringtheVietnamera,shallbepresumedtohavebeenexposedduringsuchservicetoanherbicideagent(AgentOrange),unlessthereisaffirmativeevidencetoestablishthattheveteranwasnotexposedtoanysuchagentduringthatϜservice."R.at5.#X:XX-XCE#-XCXXX:ԀTheBoardsubsequentlystatedthattheappellanthad"mettheregulatory i presumptionofactiveserviceintheRepublicofVietnamduringtheVietnamera."R.at7.Thus,itappearsthattheBoardimplicitlydeterminedthattheappellantwasentitledtoapresumptionofexposuretoAgentOrange.TheCourtdisagrees.  Section1116,title38,UnitedStatesCode,providesasfollows: ` Forthepurposesofthissubsection,aveteranwho,duringactivemilitary,naval,orairservice,servedintheRepublicofVietnamduringtheperiodbeginningonJanuary9,1962,andendingonMay7,1975,andhasadiseasereferredtoin  \& paragraph(1)(B)ofthissubsectionshallbepresumedtohavebeenexposedduring E' suchservicetoanherbicideagent...unlessthereisaffirmativeevidencetoestablishthattheveteranwasnotexposedtoanysuchagentduringthatservice.III38U.S.C.1116(a)(3)(emphasisadded).Similarly,theimplementingregulationprovides: ` Aveteranwho,duringactivemilitary,naval,orairservice,servedintheRepublicofVietnamduringtheperiodbeginningonJanuary9,1962,andendingonMay7,1975[,]andhasadiseaselistedat3.309(e)shallbepresumedtohavebeen &"/ exposedduringsuchservicetoanherbicideagent,unlessthereisaffirmativeevidencetoestablishthattheveteranwasnotexposedtoanysuchagentduringthatservice.#X:XX-XCG#:XCXXX:Ԁ )$2   l*%3 LtLLӜ38C.F.R.3.307(a)(6)(iii)(1998)(emphasisadded).#X:XX:XCN#;XCXXX:ԀInviewoftheplainlanguageofthestatute   andregulation,theCourtholdsthatneitherthestatutorynortheregulatorypresumptionwillsatisfytheincurrenceelementofCaluzawheretheveteranhasnotdevelopedaconditionenumeratedin j either38U.S.C.1116(a)or38C.F.R.3.309(e).#X:XX;XCzO#-XCXXX:SeeGardnerv.Brown,5F.3d1456,1458(Fed.  Cir.1993)#X:XX-XC8Q#-XCXXX:("Thestartingpointininterpretingastatuteisitslanguage,for'iftheintentofCongress $ t isclear,thatistheendofthematter.'")#X:XX-XCQ#-XCXXX:,aff'd,513U.S.115(1994);seealsoButtsv.Brown,    5Vet.App.532,539(1993)(enbanc)(Courtreviewsdenovoconclusionsoflaw).#X:XX-XCR#;XCXXX:Here,because  .  thereisnoevidencethattheappellanthasdevelopedanenumerateddisease,theBoard'simplicitdeterminationthattheappellanthadpresumptiveinserviceexposureiserroneousasamatteroflaw.Consequently,theCourtwillremandthemattertotheBoardto#X:XX;XCS#-XCXXX:Ԁmakeadetermination,supportedby E  anadequatestatementofreasonsandbases,astowhethertheappellanthassubmittedevidenceofexposuretoAgentOrangeduringservicethat,inviewoftheevidencesatisfyingthefirstandthird  Caluzaelements,wouldwellgroundtheappellant'sclaimfordirectserviceconnection.See  \ М38U.S.C.7104(d)(1);Alldayv.Brown,7Vet.App.517,527(1995)(Boardisrequiredtoprovide i awrittenstatementofthereasonsorbasesforfindingsandconclusionsonallmaterialissuesoffactandlawpresentedonrecord;statementmustbeadequatetoenableclaimanttounderstandprecisebasisforBoard'sdecision,aswellastofacilitatejudicialreview);Gilbertv.Derwinski,1Vet.App.   49,57(1990);seealsoMurphy,supra(Boardmustprovidereasonsorbaseswhereitfindsclaim -" notwellgrounded);cf.Norrisv.West,11Vet.App.219,22425(1998)(remandingforBoardto :$ provideadequatereasonsorbasesregardingdeterminationthatappellanthadnotsubmittednewandmaterialevidence).#X:XX-XCU#:XCXXX:ԛ D(   C.Claim3fZ  Inthedecisiononappeal,the Board ,relyingonthetestformaterialitysetforthinColvin ", v.Derwinski,1Vet.App.171,174(1991), determined,withrespecttoclaim3,thattheappellanthad  $[. submitted"new"evidencebutdeterminedthatsuchevidencewasnot"material."R.at4.InlightoftherecentdecisionoftheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuitinHodgev.West,155 &"2 F.3d1356(Fed.Cir.1998),theCourtholdsthataremandisnecessaryinorderfortheBoardtoϜapply Hodgeandtoprovidereasonsorbasesastowhethertheappellanthassatisfiedthe )$6 requirementsof 38C.F.R.3.156(a)% A (1998) andHodge . % 7  *,&8  9,': М#X:XX:XC1Z#-XCXXX:  III.CONCLUSION   ^  Uponconsiderationoftheabove,theJuly30,1997,BVAdecisionwithrespecttoclaims2and3isVACATEDandthosemattersareREMANDEDforproceedingsconsistentwiththisϜopinion.Theappellant'sappealwithrespecttoclaim1isDISMISSED.#X:XX-XC^#ԛ