Single Judge Application; we have held that a fair process violation can be found where the process by which the Board reaches an adverse credibility determination is unfair to the claimant. See Smith v. Wilkie, 32 Vet.App. 332, 338-39 (2020). In Smith, we held that the Board violates principles of fair process when it changes an earlier favorable credibility determination (or a statement that would lead a claimant to believe there had been a favorable credibility determination) without notifying the claimant or providing an opportunity to respond to the credibility-determination change. Id. at 334;

Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
NO. 20-0423
CLYDE MILLER, APPELLANT,
V.
DENIS MCDONOUGH,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before BARTLEY, Chief Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
BARTLEY, Chief Judge: Veteran Clyde Miller appeals through counsel a November 19,
2019, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied service connection for a right ankle
disability and for residuals of a head injury, including headaches, and declined to reopen a
previously denied claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Record (R.)
at 5-24.1 For the reasons that follow, the Court will set aside those portions of the November 2019
Board decision that denied service connection for residuals of a head injury and declined to reopen
a previously denied claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder and remand those matters for
readjudication consistent with this decision. The Board will affirm that portion of the November
2019 Board decision that denied service connection for a right ankle disorder.
1 In the same decision, the Board reopened previously denied claims for service connection for diabetes and
the right ankle disability. R. at 11, 13. Because these determinations are favorable to Mr. Miller, the Court will not
disturb them. See Medrano v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 165, 170 (2007) (“The Court is not permitted to reverse findings
of fact favorable to a claimant made by the Board pursuant to its statutory authority.”), aff’d in part, dismissed in part
sub nom. Medrano v. Shinseki, 332 F. App’x 625 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In addition, the Board denied service connection
for