cramping as to which the examiner noted: “Doubt esophagitis” (R. at 371); a November 1990 diagnosis of gastroenteritis (R. at 309); and a notation of May 1992 treatment for sharp mid-epigastric pain that radiated through to the back (R. at 893). This is certainly sufficient evidence of the noting in service of an in-service stomach condition. There is also abundant evidence of postservice continuity of stomach-disorder symptomatology based on the veteran’s own accounts contained in his original claim for service connection (R. at 404 (indicating that he has had a “[sjtom-ach condition”, from “1980 to present”)) and in his Substantive Appeal to the Board (R. at 497 (asserting that he has had stomach pain at least since his 1992 discharge from service)). See Savage, 10 Vet.App. at 497 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, there is medical corroboration of
holding our court on appeal will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if this judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence upon the record as a whole and  this rule applies whether the evidence is direct or wholly circumstantial holding that veterans retrospective assertion of continuous symptoms is competent evidence sufficient for this purpose holding that where there is competent evidence to support the courts findings the admission of incompetent evidence is not prejudicial holding that when competent substantial evidence supports the trial courts ruling this court will not secondguess the trial court on this matter recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct