It is the defined and consistently applied policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case. When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. By reasonable doubt is meant one which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. It is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements submitted, as distinguished from impeachment or contradiction by evidence or known facts, is not justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine if the entire, complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. The reasonable doubt doctrine is also applicable even in the absence of official records, particularly if the basic incident allegedly arose under combat, or similarly strenuous conditions, and is consistent with the probable results of such known hardships.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
[50 FR 34458, Aug. 26, 1985, as amended at 66 FR 45630, Aug. 29, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2,709
cases (
262 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Capellan v. Peake, 539 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Capellan v. Peake, 539 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
· cites it 10× “§ 5107 (b), and the analogous "reasonable doubt" regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 , apply to all material issues relating to a claim, including verification of military service.”
Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. The doctrine, however, is not applicable based on “pure speculation or remote,…”
Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (Vet. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (1994) (using “reasonable doubt” and codified into law by section 5107(b) according to the legislative history of section 5107(b) discussed below).”
Emilio R. Ortiz, Sr., Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The implementing regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 , restates that provision in terms of “reasonable doubt”: When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such…”
Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 252 (Vet. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “§ 5107 (formerly § 3007) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 , a claimant seeking benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) must be given the benefit of the doubt when evidence is in equipoise.”
Walters v. Nat'l Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985).
· cites it 2× “[2] Title 38 CFR § 3.102 (1984) states: "It is the defined and consistently applied policy of the Veterans Administration to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case.”
Kay Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “”); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (“When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises .”
Gary Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 . Such differences in the burden of proof also prevent issue preclusion.”
AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (Vet. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “In adjudicating claims for benefits, ROs are required to base their decisions upon all evidence of record, see 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102 , 3.303(a) (1987); 38 C.”
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (Vet. App. 1990).
“In enacting § 3007(b), Congress codified the longstanding “reasonable doubt” policy of the Veterans’ Administration which was contained in 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (1988): It is the defined and consistently applied policy of the Veterans’ Administration to administer the law under a…”
Peterson v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 196 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
· cites it 4× “38 C.F.R. § 3.102 . The Air Force “is required by law to rate a disability using criteria outlined in the [VASRD].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.