# Gaines v. West

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · August 6, 1998 · 11 Vet. App. 353

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8167418

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerry GAINES, Sr. v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** August 6, 1998
- **Citations:** 11 Vet. App. 353; 1998 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 967; 1998 WL 457696
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Holdaway
- **Judges:** Holdaway, Kramer, Steinberg
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8167418

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding error where, in analyzing whether appellant had engaged in combat, Board partly relied on lack of award of medals showing combat service but neglected to address, inter alia, appellant’s sworn testimony that he had engaged in combat
- noting that, in light of the errors in the BVA decision requiring remand, there was no 6 need for the Court to address the appellant's additional arguments
- noting that, in light of the errors in the BVA decision requiring remand, there was no need for the Court to address the appellant’s additional arguments

## Opinion text

HOLDAWAY, Judge,
concurring: I concur in the opinion in all but one respect. The majority finds error in the Board’s failure to discuss its “conclusion” that participating in “operations against the Viet Cong” did not necessarily indicate that the appellant was involved in combat operations. The Board’s conclusion was, in fact, an unexceptionable statement requiring no discussion or explanation. All personnel in a combat theater, and many outside it, are engaged in “operations.” That is why they are there, whatever their assignment or military specialty. That includes many who are remote from the exposure to the actuality or the threat of hostile fire. In effect, all the Board said was that simply “being there” was not, of itself, evidence that the appellant was exposed to the stress of combat. That is a truism requiring no explanation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8167418. Public record. Not legal advice.