that a lay person was not competent to render an opinion regarding the diagnosis or etiology of a disease or injury. Espiritu, 2 Vet.App. at 494. Although the Board’s determination that Mr. Washington was incompetent to render a medical diagnosis is an accurate statement of the law, the Board mis-characterized the purpose for which the appellant’s testimony was introduced. See id. The appellant neither testified about the diagnosis nor the etiology of his current hip disability. Rather, he was testifying to factual matters of which he had first-hand knowledge: Experiencing pain in his right hip and thigh in service, reporting to sick call, being placed on limited duty, and undergoing physical therapy. The appellant is competent to provide such testimony. See Layno, 6 Vet.App. at 469-71 (<HOLDING>); Espiritu, 2 Vet.App. at 494 (holding that a
holding that witnesss opinion of a persons reaction to hearing a statement was admissible lay testimony based on personal observation holding that plaintiffs may plead on information and belief if matters are not within their personal knowledge holding that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to sustain the states objection where questions to a witness go to his understanding of the law concerning parole and call for the legal knowledge of a lay witness holding that lay testimony is competent if it is limited to matters that the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of the witnesss personal knowledge holding that a witnesss testimony is incredible as a matter of law if the witness testifies as to facts that the witness could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature