Citation Nr: 1324133 Decision Date: 07/29/13 Archive Date: 08/07/13 DOCKET NO. 10-46 093 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines THE ISSUE Whether a declaration of forfeiture of eligibility for VA benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a) (West 2002) against the appellant was proper. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Wishard, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had military service from December 1960 to December 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2010 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO) in Manila, Philippines. Historically, in a January 2004 decision, the Board found that forfeiture was properly declared against the Veteran pursuant to the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103. Subsequently, the Veteran filed a claim to reopen the decision, which the RO denied in February 2010. In May 2012, the Board reopened the previously denied claim based on receipt of new and material evidence and remanded the reopened claim for RO adjudication. It has now returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The appellant knowingly presented materially fraudulent evidence in connection with his claims for entitlement to service connection for prostate enlargement, grade II with nodular pattern and solid nodule, and lipoma, to include a thyroid nodule. 2. The appellant knowingly assisted other claimants in presenting fraudulent evidence in connection with their claims for entitlement to VA benefits. 3. The appellant's act of fraud is established beyond a reasonable doubt. CONCLUSION OF LAW The declaration of forfeiture of eligibility of VA benefits was proper. 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.901, 3.905 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a). See also Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). However, the present issue involves forfeiture of VA benefits. The statute dealing with forfeiture is found in chapter 61 of title 38 of the United States Code. Regulations pertaining to forfeiture have their own notice and development provisions; the VCAA provisions apply only to procedures under chapter 51 of title 38, U .S. Code. See, e.g, Barger v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 132, 138 (2002), Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.905(b), forfeiture of benefits under section 3.901 or section 3.902 will not be declared until the person has been notified by the Regional Counsel or, in the Manila VA Regional Office, the Adjudication Officer, of the right to present a defense. Such notice shall consist of a written statement sent to the person's latest address of record setting forth the following: (1) The specific charges against the person; (2) A detailed statement of the evidence supporting the charges, subject to regulatory limitations on disclosure of information; (3) Citation and discussion of the applicable statute; (4) The right to submit a statement or evidence within 60 days, either to rebut the charges or to explain the person's position; (5) The right to a hearing within 60 days, with representation by counsel of the person's own choosing, and that no expenses incurred by a claimant, counsel, or witness will be paid by VA. The original forfeiture decision was issued in 2002. In 2001, prior to issuing that decision, VA complied with all of the notification provisions. Notice as to the requirements to reopen a previously denied claim was provided to the Veteran in 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009. To the extent that there has been any error in notice, the Veteran has not been shown to have been prejudiced. The claims file includes service treatment records (STRs), VA and private medical records and correspondence, a field examination report with depositions, and statements by the Veteran and others. No additional assistance or notification is necessary. Legal Criteria Any person who knowingly makes or causes to be made or conspires, combines, aids, or assists in, agrees to, arranges for, or in any way procures the making or presentation of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper, concerning any claim for benefits under any of the laws administered by the Secretary (except laws pertaining to insurance benefits) shall forfeit all rights, claims, and benefits under all laws administered by the Secretary (except laws pertaining to insurance benefits). 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a) (West 2002). Fraud is defined as an act committed in perpetration of one of the above-listed actions. 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 (2012). A forfeiture action is an adversarial process initiated by VA. Such an adversarial process requires the application of a "beyond a reasonable doubt standard" to declare a forfeiture. For a finding of forfeiture, the Board must find that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly made or caused to be made false or fraudulent statements concerning his claim for restoration of benefits. This determination is a question of fact. Macarubbo v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 388 (1997). Any person who knowingly makes or causes to be made or conspires, combines, aids, or assists in, agrees to, arranges for, or in any way procures the making or presentation of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper, concerning any claim for benefits under any of the laws administered by the Secretary shall forfeit all rights, claims, and benefits under all laws administered by the Secretary, except laws relating to insurance benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.901(a). The perpetration of fraud requires an element of materiality, that is, whether or not it is expressly referenced in the VA's statute and regulations relating to the presentation of false or fraudulent information in a claim for benefits. See Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 23 (1999); see also Field v. Mans, 516 59,69 (1995) (statutory use of the term "fraud" implies the common law elements regardless of Congress's decision not to enumerate them). The Veteran's presentation of documents to VA may be considered fraudulent only in the circumstances where he knew he was presenting materially false information to obtain VA benefits. "Fraud" is an act committed when a person knowingly makes or causes to be made or conspires, combines, aids, assists in, agrees to, arranges for, or in any way procures the making or presentation of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper concerning any claim for benefits under any laws administered by the VA, except laws relating to insurance benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.901(a). Analysis The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran's claims file, with an emphasis on the evidence pertinent to the issue on appeal. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence of record. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence where appropriate, and the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as to the present issue. This appeal centers around whether the Veteran knowingly presented VA with fraudulent evidence by A.V. in support of his claims for VA benefits, and whether he knowingly assisted other claimants in presenting VA with fraudulent evidence by A.V. and others. In April 1998, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for lymphoma and a prostate gland disability. In April 1998, VA requested that the Veteran furnish the name and addresses of his treatment providers (doctors and/or hospitals). The Veteran completed a VA Form 21-4142 (Authorization and Consent to Release Information) and listed treatment at a VA facility in 1988 and treatment in 1996. He noted that his attending physician was Dr. R.C-E. Notably, he did not list A.V. as a treating provider. In a February 1999 decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claims. The Veteran submitted additional medical records, and subsequently appealed the RO's denial to the Board. In December 2000, the Board remanded the claims for additional development, to include obtaining the Veteran's private treatment records. In a January 2001 statement, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4142, in which he noted that he had been treated by A.V. for thirty years, from October 1969 to July 1999. The Board finds it notable, the Veteran had previously filed a claim for VA benefits in the 1973 and did not list A.V. as a medical provider; instead, he provided a report from Dr. R.D., and also noted treatment by Dr. C.G. In 1985, the Veteran indicated that his physician was Dr. J.R. A 1986 record reflects that the Veteran consulted with Dr. E.T. The Veteran also submitted a statement in 1986 regarding his physical condition, but did not mention A.V., although he noted other physicians. In August 1988, the Veteran again filed a claim for VA benefits, and again did not list A.V. as a medical provider. In May 1989, the Veteran submitted a 1990 statement by Dr. J.R. stating that the Veteran was treated at that clinic in 1965, 1969, and 1985. An August 1990 handwritten note from Dr. J.R. states that the Veteran was being treated once a month for osteoarthritis and angina pectoris. In 1991, the Veteran again filed a claim for VA compensation. An August 1991 medical certification from Dr. A.S. reflects that the Veteran was being treated at his clinic for various complaints and had been treated by the clinic from June 1969 to December 1969, and from February 1991. A January 1987 medical certificate from Dr. R.C. reflects that the Veteran was treated at his clinic. The Board finds that if the Veteran had been treated by A.V. from October 1969 to July 1999, it would have been reasonable the Veteran to have noted it and provided treatment records when he filed his earlier claims; he did not do so, but instead he provided clinical statements from other alleged providers. In relation to his claim for entitlement to service connection for lymphoma and a prostate gland disability, the Veteran also submitted a medical certificate/statement dated in January 2000 purported to be from A.V., and on A.V.'s letterhead. The certificate has a circular stamp with the name of A.V. It also has his typed name and what appears to be a signature or initials. It reflects that the Veteran started as a bedridden patient with numerous complaints. It also states as follows: This is to certify that [the Veteran] of [address] had been my treatment since October 20, 1969 to July 25, 1999, for the following ailments, Prostatic enlargement grade -2 with nodule pattern, and solid Nodule, Lipoma, thyroid nodule right neck, Mild Urinary bladder, PTB. Minimal, Bronchitis, Allergic Dermatitis of both fingers, Numbness of both hands, both Arms. Both feet and legs, Anxiety, Headache, Irritability. Restlessness, insomnia, and general debility. This Medical Certificate is issue for whatever purpose it may serve. The Board notes that at the time of the January 2000 statement, A.V. was 82 years old; the Veteran was 62 years old and requesting A.V.'s assistance in obtaining VA compensation benefits. This is notable because A.V. later stated that he wrote the above statement due to fear of the Veteran. The Board has considered the ages of the Veteran and A.V., and the physical stature of each as represented in the photographs, and finds that A.V.'s statement that he was in fear of the Veteran is credible. In March 2001, the RO received a statement (VA Form 21-4138) purported to be signed by A.V. The statement has a circular stamp with the name of A.V. The form's signature block does not contain A.V.'s signature, but instead contains the Veteran's typed name. The statement is as follows: This is to certify that the aforementioned [the veteran] was my Outpatient due to Prostatic Enlargement grade 2 nodule pattern solid nodule lipoma thyroid right neck Mild urinary bladder, PTB minimal, bronchitis, allergy Dermatitis of both fingers, numbness of both hands both arms both feet and legs anxiety. He visited me once a month for the condition of his illnesses, his dermatitis was on and off, recommended to take Amoxicillin 500 Mg. 3 times a day after meals. Cotrimoxazole 160 Mg. for urine. Hypertension heart disease. This is in reference to your letter dated February 7, 2001." I certify that the statements on [ineligible] are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. The RO, in March 2001, requested a field investigation, and requested assistance in securing the Veteran's treatment records from 1969 to 1999 when he was allegedly treated by A.V. If no records were available, the field investigator was to obtain an explanation from A.V. as to his recollection. As part of a field examination/investigation, the RO obtained sworn statements from several individuals. An April 2001 sworn statement of P.S. is of record. P.S. stated, in pertinent part, that he met the Veteran when he (P.S.) was brought to his home by someone else. According to P.S., the Veteran asked him to sign what appeared to be a blank VA form. According to P.S., he was made to believe that the Veteran would work on his claim legally. He stated that he trusted the Veteran to work on his claim. P.S. believed that the Veteran had obtained three certifications, without his knowledge, regarding employment and that the Veteran submitted those certificates in support of a claim without his knowledge. Those certifications were subsequently found to be fraudulent. P.S. stated that the Veteran told him that he would charge him half of his first check in payment for his services "just like in the other claims he had worked on and approved by the VA." A June 2001 sworn statement of B.Q. is of record. B.Q. stated that he was never treated by A.V. and had never met him personally. He further stated that he was introduced to the Veteran as someone who could facilitate his claim for VA benefits. He stated in pertinent part, as follows: [The Veteran] assured me that my claim will be approved in due time. He told me that he will ask a certain [A.V.] for a medical certification that will cover my supported treatment for my sickness from 1946 to 1992 just for an initial amount of (Philippine Peso) P2,500. I gave him that amount right then and there. After around a month, I returned to his residence in Tarlac where he gave me a medical certification supposedly signed by [A.V.]. [The Veteran] told me to mail the said medical certification to the VA. He also told me to just wait for around a month for a letter of decision from the VA. When I received a letter of advice from the VA that my claim was already being processed, I brought the letter to [the Veteran] at his residence in Tarlac. He told me that the decision on my case would be due within 3 or 4 months. B.Q. stated that it was his understanding that he would give the Veteran 50% of the lump sum payment upon the approval of B.Q.'s VA claim. He also stated that he did not give much weight to the falsified medical certification as he was assured by the Veteran that it was merely to satisfy a requirement of his claim. A June 2001 sworn statement of R.B.C. is of record. R.B.C. stated that he was never treated by A.V. and had never met him personally. R.B.C. stated that he went to the Veteran who is "famous among the veteran here for having already facilitated the approval of a lot of claims for benefit with the VA. So I asked him if he can help me in my claim. He told me that he will ask a certain Dr. [A.V.] for a medical certification that will cover my supposed treatment for my sickness from 1946 to 1992 just for an initial amount of P2,500. After two days, he gave me the said medical certification with the instruction to send it to the VA." R.B.C. further stated that "[i]t was our understanding that I will give him any amount upon the approval of my VA claim." On June 20, 2001, A.V., stated under oath, that he has two logbooks containing summaries of treatment of his patients. He stated that he knew the Veteran, but that the Veteran has never been a patient of his, and that he had never treated him. A.V. stated that, the prior year, the Veteran came to his home for the first time and stated that he was looking for a doctor who can certify and issue a medical certificate for his alleged treatment. A.V. stated that the Veteran returned to his home several times after that and tried to convince him to "give in " to his request. A.V. stated as follows: Initially, I tried to refuse him and explained to him that all my patients were registered in my patients' logbooks. However, I finally succumbed to his wishes for fear that he might do me harm. Being already an old man I was afraid that he might get angry with me if I refused him. He was totally a stranger to me and I did not even know his characteristics so that I was really scared of him. I would like to tell you that he was already bringing with him a typewriter which he used in typing the medical certification. After preparing the medical certification, he asked me to sign it which I obliged. However, this did not end there. After that, he still came to my house several times more and asked me to sign numerous medical certifications for VA veterans and claimants. He personally typed and prepared the medical certifications right here in my house. The medical certifications covered alleged treatments of veterans and claimants from 1940s. I tried to ask him to bring the veterans to me so I can personally see them but he refused. In such cases, I was constrained to sign the medical certifications he prepared without even seeing the veterans. A.V. also stated that he completed his medical course at the University of the Philippines College of Medicine in 1939, and also specialized as a physician-surgeon-cardiologist in Ohio, USA. He stated that he no longer had documents reflecting his authority to practice medicine in the Philippines, and that he had practiced prior to the creation of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) in approximately 1972. A.V. certified that he had read and understood the foregoing deposition before he affixed his signature and thumbprint; he further certified that the information stated there was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. A photograph of A.V. reflects that he is sitting in a wheelchair and appears to be elderly. The photo also reflects that the fingers of his right hand are bent. The identification form, on which photographs are attached, contains A.V.'s left thumb mark, but reflects that his right fingers are stiff and folded and deformed due to stroke. The Veteran's deposition reflects that he reported that he was 83 years old. A notarized statement purported to be from Dr. AV, dated in July 2001, and submitted by the Veteran is also of record. The statement contains a signature over the typed name Dr. A.V; there is no circular stamp. The statement reflects as follows: I, Dr. [A.V.] MD, of legal age, married, filipino citizen with postal address at Bactad Proper Urdaneta Pangasinan, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law depose and say: 1. That, I know personally [the Veteran] because he was my outpatient from October 20, 1969 up to July 25, 1999; 2. That, the relatives of [the Veteran] was my family friends who introduced me to him to locate me and give my address and also my named to consult his illnesses. 3. That, [the Veteran] was still student at the college during he first consulted me his condition October 20, 1969, and he visited me once a month for his check up; 4. That, I am executing this affidavit freely voluntarily to attest the truth and established the facts that [the Veteran] was my patient from October 20, 1969 to July 25, 1999. I am making this statements for whatever legal intents and purposes elsewhere. A July 3, 2001 affidavit purported to be by A.V. is also of record. It reflects that he has personally known the Veteran as a patient from October 1969 to July 1999. The August 2001 VA Field Investigation report contained information regarding A.V.'s qualifications to practice medicine. It was reported that his name was not in the list of doctors authorized or licensed to practice medicine in the Philippines. The report also noted that a search revealed that the registration number claimed by A.V. actually belonged to someone else. The field investigator, in an August 2001 Report of Field Examination, stated that while A.V. appeared deceptive on the issue involving his authority to practice medicine, he nevertheless appeared truthful on the other aspects of his testimony. The claims file contains several copies of a sworn statement purported to be from A.V. and dated in September 2001. The copies were received by VA in 2004, 2007, and 2008. The statement is as follows: I did not collaborated or conspired with [the Veteran] as you mentioned in your [VA letter of September 2001]. It is not a false medical documents, it is the exact and true medical documents I issued to him last January 21, 2001 with my own seal and signature. I know for the fact he did not falsified, forged my signatures and seal, in any medical certificates I issued to my patients, veterans, and spouses. He had nothing to do with these medical documents. That [the Veteran] had been my outpatient from October 20, 1069 to July 25, 1999, that I am making this statement because it is unfair to [the Veteran] that the statements submitted by your investigator were all false and not true. The Board notes that the statement "I was forced to say against the veteran" was added to copies of the statement which the Veteran submitted to VA in 2004, 2007, and July 2008, but is not on the copy received in January 2008. In addition, it is lighter in type and appears to have been typed with a different typewriter. The Board also notes that the document contains a signature line of A.V. but there is no handwritten signature or initials above the signature line on all but one of the copies. The copies received by VA in 2004, January 2007, and January 2008 do not contain a signature or initial of A.V.; however, the copy received in July 2008 does contain an initial above A.V.'s signature line. Notably, in March 2008 correspondence, VA had informed the Veteran, in written correspondence, of the evidence in its possession. VA listed the evidence as including the "unsigned" August 2001 statement by A.V. In response, the Veteran again submitted a copy of document, which was received by VA in July 2008. The copy is the same as the majority of the copies with the exception that the July 2008 copy has a mark above A.V.'s signature block. The Board finds that this is a fraudulent document. The earlier versions were not signed or initialed. Only after the RO noted that the document was unsigned, did the Veteran submit a signed copy. Thus, the evidence reflects that someone took a copy of the original document and added an initial over the signature line. The Board finds it unreasonable that this was A.V., as the record reflects that A.V. died in 2005. The "August 2001" statement, submitted to VA by the Veteran, which has at least three slightly different variations, casts doubt on the authenticity of other statements/affidavits submitted by the Veteran. A "statement of denial and compliance," dated in October 2001, is of record. The Veteran stated that he did not knowingly submit fraudulent evidence. He stated, in pertinent part, as follows: The medical certificate signed by Dr. [A.V.] is not false, because I am not a Doctor to determine the contents is false. As long as the certification is a document properly signed by him, it is his responsibility to answer before this office, and if his answer is false, he is the one responsible for it but not me. Again, I will say that I do not know that the certification is false. He also denied assisting other claimants in filing their claims for financial consideration. The December 2001 field examination report reflects the statement of the Veteran, under oath, that A.V. has been treating him since he left the US Navy in 1969. He further stated that Dr. V. has been a family friend since he [the Veteran] was still a student after his US Navy days in 1969. He stated that he has never typed or prepared any document in Dr. A.V.'s home, and that he had not collected money from other Veterans for certifications that he had prepared and that A.V. had signed. He further reported that if other individuals had alleged that he had provided them with medical certificates signed by A.V., in connection with their own VA claims that he did "not know what they are talking about." Compensation and Pension Service determined in April 2002 that the Veteran had forfeited all rights, claims, and benefits under the laws administered by VA as provided by 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a). It determined that it was clearly established by the evidence of record that the Veteran knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately submitted fraudulent medical information in support of his claim for service-connected disability benefits. In addition, it found that the Veteran assisted other individuals in submitting fraudulent medical information in an attempt to help them fraudulently obtain VA benefits to which they had no entitlement. An affidavit dated in August 2002, purported to be by B.Q. is of record. B.Q. disputed the field examiner's report and stated that it was not correct. He stated that he had the Veteran help him look for a doctor and accompanied him to the home of A.V. He further stated that A.V. briefly interviewed him and informed him that he needed to come back the next day for his medical certificate and that the fee was [2,500]. B.Q. stated that when he had the money, he requested that the Veteran accompany him to A.V. so that the he could pay him. B.Q. stated that he offered to share his VA disability benefits, if any, with the Veteran by giving him one half of the lump sum. He further stated that the Veteran told him that he was not going to charge him for his services. This affidavit purported to be by B.Q. is less than credible. If the Veteran had merely introduced him and accompanied him to the home of a A.V., it seems highly unlikely that B.Q. would offer the Veteran one half of his lump sum payment. In March 2003 VA Form 9, the Veteran stated that A.V. was a liar when he claimed that he was afraid of the Veteran. He further stated that he has known A.V. for years. With regard to B.Q.'s statement against him, the Veteran stated that he had spoken to B.Q. subsequent to the B.Q.'s sworn statement. According to the Veteran, B.Q. reported that he had been intimidated by an angry field investigator into signing the sworn statement. In an August 2004 statement from the Veteran, he stated that it was a mistake for him to have believed that A.V. was a medical doctor. He further stated that "many" times he questioned A.V. about when he had completed his medical course, and even asked him to show the Veteran his diploma. The Board notes that this differs considerably from his December 2007 statement in which he stated that it did not occur to him to "rudely inquire" into the credentials of A.V. before being attended to by him. He stated that given the "humble complacent quality" of Filipinos it is not common for them to question a person's credentials. He stated that "only an incredulous mind like that of an investigator, would indulge in searching stance about the credentials of the would-be doctor." The claims file includes an August 2004 statement from E.N. and F.M. They stated that they have personally known the Veteran and asked him to help them with their claims, and that he taught them how to complete the paperwork. They further stated that the Veteran was an honest man and that he helps people with no obligations to pay him. They further stated that if their claims are approved, there is no agreement or conditions that they will give him money for his help. The opinion of E.N. and F.M. as to the honesty of the Veteran is not binding on the Board. The claims file includes an August 2006 statement from W.V. and L.V. They state that they have known the Veteran personally and that he has suffered from a disability with regard to his prostate, testicles, and boils, since January 1969. The Veteran submitted a statement dated in December 2007 in which he stated that he did not know that A.V. was not properly licensed. He also stated that he (the Veteran) is a "lowly farmer, of humble beginnings and statute, bereft of any goons and gold, authority, power and influence over others." He further stated that A.V. had dominion and authority in the sanctity of his home and could easily thwart any undue force from anyone by his positive resistance or by calling for immediate assistance from his family, neighbors, or police authorities. He stated that Dr. A.V's alleged fear is "completely an empty postulate, unbelievable and inconsistent with the established pattern of his actuations on the matter." He also stated that he had no medical training himself and could not have prepared the certificates. However, the Board finds that the Veteran could have typed dictated statements by A.V. without personally having had medical training. He also stated that A.V. is well known in the neighborhood. He further stated that every time he visited his residence, he saw patients there. The Veteran stated that he did not know that A.V. was not registered with the PRC. An Affidavit of Witness by E.V. and D.R., dated in July 2008, is of record. It reflects that D.R. was the nephew of A.V. and E.V. is the widow of A.V., who died in September 2005. It further notes their statement that during his lifetime, when he issued medical certificates, A.V. used his personalized rubber stamped seal, circular form, where he affixed his signature. They noted that it was not customary for him to affix his signature elsewhere nor above his typewritten name. They also stated that they know that the Veteran was a patient of A.V. and that A.V. personally treated him at his clinic. They also stated that they only recently learned that A.V. was not licensed from PRC to practice medicine. The Board finds that this affidavit is less credible than the deposition of A.V. which was taken under oath in the presence of a field examiner and was made against the self-interest of A.V. In a March 2010 statement, the Veteran stated that he did not prepare false medical certificates on behalf of others and did not ask them for monetary payment. He further stated that he only gives help for humanitarian reasons. He stated that medical certificates in question were prepared by A.V., and that he [the Veteran] has no medical knowledge. In a May 2010 statement, the Veteran again stated that B.Q. told him that he signed the earlier prepared statement by the field examiner because of fear, and in essence, the prior statement (deposition) was not true. He also stated that he had spoken to A.V. and that A.V. also stated that he was forced to say that the Veteran had prepared the medical certificates. This seems contradictory to the Veteran's earlier 2007 statement that A.V. had dominion and authority in the sanctity of his home and could easily thwart any undue force from anyone. As noted above, any person who knowingly makes or causes to be made or conspires, combines, aids, or assists in, agrees to, arranges for, or in any way procures the making or presentation of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper, concerning any claim for benefits under any of the laws administered by the Secretary (except laws pertaining to insurance benefits) shall forfeit all rights, claims, and benefits under all laws administered by the Secretary (except laws pertaining to insurance benefits). 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a). Fraud is defined as an act committed in perpetration of one of the above-listed actions. 38 C.F.R. § 3.901. In essence there are three distinct bases for a possible finding that the Veteran committed fraud. One basis is that he knew that A.V. was not medically qualified to provide a clinical opinion in his claim yet he submitted the medical certificates. The second basis is that the Veteran knew that he had not been treated by A.V. from 1969 to 1999 and submitted evidence stating such. The third basis is that the Veteran aided others in submitting known false documents in support of their claims for VA benefits. The Board finds that it does not need to make a determination as to whether the Veteran knew that A.V. was not a doctor, because the Board finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Veteran knowingly submitted a fraudulent document that he had been treated by A.V. from 1969 to 1999, and also that he knowingly aided others in submitting known false documents in support of their claims for VA benefits. First, as noted above, the Board finds it notable that despite filing for VA benefits several times over a 20 year period, the Veteran did not note any treatment by A.V. until 2001; rather, he earlier noted treatment by other providers. This makes his claim that A.V. treated him for 30 years suspect. Second, the Board notes that if the Veteran had been treated by A.V., it would be reasonable for there to have been records of such treatment. However, neither A.V., nor the Veteran, submitted any such clinical records. The absence of any corroborating medical evidence supporting assertions, in and of itself, does not render lay statements incredible; however, such absence is for consideration in determining credibility. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that the absence of contemporaneous medical documentation may go to the credibility and weight of appellant's lay testimony, but the lack of such evidence does not, in and of itself, render the lay testimony incredible). In the present case, not only is there a lack of clinical records, but neither the Veteran nor A.V. has provided a reasonable explanation as to why, if the Veteran had been a patient, there were no records. In addition, A.V. stated that he kept log books of all his patients which he brought to VA hearings, but no log books were noted for the Veteran. Even after A.V. changed his statement and averred that he had treated the Veteran for 30 years, neither A.V., nor the Veteran, submitted copies of the log book to substantiate such a statement. The Veteran also did not submit receipts for services, or bills for services to support his contentions. Third, and very importantly, the Board finds that the statement by A.V., which was made in person to a field investigator, is more credible than the documents submitted by the Veteran and purported to be by A.V. While the field investigator contacted A.V. at his residence and deposed him in person, the purported written statements were submitted to VA by the Veteran. There is no credible reason to find that the investigator would be biased or would intentionally intimidate A.V. into lying, and the Board finds that any such statement is less than credible considering the record as a whole. To the contrary, the Veteran would have a reason to be less than credible as financial benefits were at stake. In addition, the written affidavits/statements in support of the Veteran contain suspect details, such as a misspelling of the spouse's name (July 2001 document), and no signature or initial by A.V. on some copies of the affidavit but present on another copy (August 2001 document), and the added sentence to some copies of the statement. In addition, the Veteran had more to gain financially by being deceitful than A.V. If the Veteran had actually been a patient of A.V., A.V. had no reason to lie and could have simply stated such under oath while being deposed. See Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App.24, 25 (1991) (finding that, while the Board may not ignore a Veteran's testimony simply because he or she is an interested party and stands to gain monetary benefits, personal interest may affect the credibility of the evidence); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 510-511 (1995) (credibility can be generally evaluated by a showing of interest, bias, or inconsistent statements, and the demeanor of the witness, facial plausibility of the testimony, and the consistency of the testimony). The Board has also considered the inconsistent statements of B.Q. In his June 2001 deposition, B.Q. admitted under oath that he had previously submitted a fraudulent certificate from A.V., with the help of the Veteran, to obtain VA benefits. That certificate had stated that A.V. had treated B.Q. from 1946 to 1992. In his June 2001 deposition, B.Q. admitted that he had never been treated by A.V. However, subsequent to being confronted by the Veteran, B.Q., in an August 2002 statement, averred that the June 2001 deposition was untrue and that he had been treated by A.V. on one occasion. The Board finds that the August 2002 affidavit is less credible than the deposition. The June 2001 deposition was made against the financial interest of B.Q.; thus, it is more credible that his subsequent August 2002 statement. In addition, it was made under oath after B.Q. had been informed of the perjury provisions of the Philippine Penal Code. Fourth, the affidavits of R.B.C. and P.S. are compelling evidence that the Veteran committed fraud in assisting claimants, and charged them for his assistance. In his June 2001 deposition, the Veteran denied assisting anyone in claims for VA benefit. In his October 2001 "statement of denial and compliance," the Veteran again stated that he did not render assistance to other veterans and surviving spouses of deceased veterans. However, he had previously stated that he did assist claimants (December 1995) and he subsequently stated that he did assist claimants on a humanitarian basis (March 2010). The Board observes that the evidence of record, by way of the field examination sworn statement by A.V. and the sworn statements by several VA claimants, reflects that the Veteran conspired with others to submit false medical and employment statements to VA, and that the Veteran knowingly submitted false documents. The depositions of the various other claimants were corroborated by A.V.'s own testimony, which was against his self-interest, as were the claimants' depositions. The Board finds that the Veteran knew that he had not been treated by A.V. from 1969 to 1999, and knew that documents stating such were false. With such knowledge, he intentionally misrepresented his medical history to VA in an attempt to obtain VA benefits. Moreover, such a history was material to the Veteran's claims. The Board also finds that the Veteran collaborated and conspired with other individuals in obtaining falsified documents. . The Veteran has stated that if the medical certificates and affidavits by A.V. were false, then it is the responsibility of A.V. and not the Veteran. He contends that he (the Veteran) would not know if the documents were false because he is not a doctor and could not determine if the contents were false. This is not a legitimate argument. While the Veteran may be unfamiliar with medical terms, he would certainly know whether he had been treated by A.V. over a 30 year period. Based on the above, the Board finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Veteran committed fraud. In the present case, the Board concludes that the Veteran submitted a January 2000 fraudulent medical statement. The Veteran submitted such medical statement in support of his claims of service connection. The evidence reveals that the Veteran conspired with A.V. to create falsified medical statements for himself as well as for other VA claimants for the purpose of obtaining VA monetary benefits. The claims file contains several sworn statements from VA claimants who stated that the Veteran assisted them in obtaining falsified medical statements from A.V. for the purpose of obtaining VA benefits. The Board finds that the sworn depositions of A.V. and the other VA claimants to the effect that the Veteran fraudulently obtained falsified material statements are credible. Although, based on the facts above alone, the Board has found that the Veteran is less than credible and committed fraud, the Board notes that the evidence discussed below also supports the Board's finding. Historically, in 1995, VA investigated whether the Veteran had incorrectly reported his income. The Veteran had been awarded disability pension benefits effective December 1, 1993; his monthly rate was based on zero income. An April 1995 VA Form 27-3536 (Deposition Taken Before a Representative of the Veterans Administration) by I.T.C. (widow of veteran F.C.G.) is of record. It reflects that when she received a lump sum payment from VA, the appellant took a portion of it "as a payment in helping for her claim with the VA." She further stated that whenever she received mail from VA, which required an answer, the appellant would handle all the correspondence. She also stated that in their barangay (administrative division) "everybody knows that [the Veteran] is helping people with regard to VA claims." A June 1995 joint affidavit by five individuals (E.P., B.R., E.D., J. D.C., and A.S.) reflects that they approached the appellant for help in filing VA claims but that he did not receive payment for his assistance. A June 1995 statement by the Veteran (VA Form 21-4138) reflects his statement that he has helped other claimants with their VA claims, but that he has never received financial compensation for his help. In September 1995 correspondence the Veteran stated that he had been financially assisting the deceased F.G.C. for five year and that prior to his death, F.G.C. had promised to pay him everything he owed him. He further stated that he actually took money from F.G.C.'s widow to give to individuals on her behalf. A March 1995 statement from the eight individuals was attached to his statement. In October 1995, the RO requested a field investigation. In a December 1995 VA Form 27-3536, the Veteran stated that he assists others in their VA claims, but that he does not charge them. He stated that he accompanied I.T.C. (widow of veteran F.C.G) to collect her VA payment for retroactive benefits. He stated that she instructed him to manage the distribution of the money for her, and that he deducted an amount as payment for the accumulated expense which he had incurred in "facilitating" the claims. He stated that the amount he obtained was "only compensatory to my time and efforts I spent in the pursuit of their claim with the VA. I continuously assisted them in filing their VA claims for almost 5 years." In a December 1995 VA Form 27-3536, R.T.C. stated that the appellant had assisted in handling his father's (F.C.) claim. He stated that the Veteran earned money as a VA pensioner and by engaging in assisting claimants in filing claims with VA. He further stated that his father had made a promise to the Veteran that he would give him a parcel of residential lot in the event that his [father's] claim was approved, but that his father died before the claim was approved. He stated that the Veteran then helped his other with the claim. He stated that when his mother received a check from VA, the Veteran cashed it and gave money to the individuals noted in a March 1995 letter. He stated that the Veteran kept a portion of the money, and that his mother stated that that portion was the Veteran's share in helping her in facilitating the VA claim. The above evidence reflects that the Veteran did assist numerous other individuals in filing claims for VA benefits, and received compensation for such on at least one occasion. In sum, the Board finds that the evidence of record reflects that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant committed fraud in his claim for VA benefits when he provided evidence that he was treated by A.V. from 1969 to 1999. Therefore, he must forfeit all rights, claims and benefits under the laws administered by the VA (except laws pertaining to insurance benefits). The Board also finds that the evidence of record reflects that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant assisted others (B.Q., R.B.C., and P.S.) in filing fraudulent claims by obtaining fraudulent medical certificates for VA benefit purposes. Therefore, he must forfeit all rights, claims and benefits under the laws administered by the VA (except laws pertaining to insurance benefits). ORDER Forfeiture of VA benefits invoked against the appellant under 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a) for fraud was proper; the benefit sought on appeal is denied. ____________________________________________ M. E. LARKIN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs