a determination to be made by the Board, and the Board erred when it failed to consider and discuss it. . See Schafrath, 1 Vet.App. at 593; Ashmore, 1 Vet.App. at 582; Wood, 1 Vet.App. at 193; see also Weaver, 14 Vet.App. at 302. The Board also failed to discuss the facts in the record that reveal that the appellant first notified VA of his in-service hip injury in his August 1995 NOD and his July 1996 Substantive Appeal to the Board; and' he testified as to the details of the occurrence of such injury during his January 1997 hearing. R. at 211-12, 214-17. .It was-not until January 1997, however, in an SSOC issued following the appellant’s hearing testimony, that the RO first put the appellant on notice that the appellant’s SMRs could not be located. R. at 227. Then, in October 1998, t (<HOLDING>). Further, the Court held in Dixon v.
holding that a medical opinion is adequate where it is based upon the veterans medical history examinations and the also describes the disability in sufficient detail holding that review of medical history during an examination assisted doctors medical conclusions holding that vas duty to assist is particularly great in light of the unavailability of the veterans exit examination and full army medical records holding that the boards duty to assist a claimant in developing his claim is heightened in cases in which the appellants smrs are lost or destroyed and includes the obligation to search for alternate medical records holding that the courts caselaw establishes a heightened duty to assist when the appellants medical records have been lost or destroyed