3 . As noted previously, this presumption may be rebutted "where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service.” 38 U.S.C. § 1111; see Horn, 25 Vet.App. at 235. 4 . Board findings regarding whether a claimant suffered from an injury or disease in service, and whether that in-service disease or injury is related to a current disability or one that preexisted service, are questions of fact to be reviewed by the Court under the "clearly erroneous” standard. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79, 82 (2006) (Board's finding that a veteran suffered an in-service event, injury, or disease is reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard); Coghill v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 342, 345 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 52
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that boards finding of no relationship between any inservice injury and a current disability was not clearly erroneous holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that when court applies the clearly erroneous standard court may not reverse boards finding of fact if after court reviews the record in its entirety the finding is supported by a plausible basis holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous