upon the interaction of individuals in a collective process.”). With regard to the Secretary’s second argument, although the Board found Mr. Arneson’s testimony “credible,” it also found the lapses in time between service and his first medical treatment “particularly significant” and “weighting] against his claim.” R. at 16-18. As Mr. Arneson argues, if the Board found his testimony concerning the continuity of his symptoms credible, such lapses in time would not weigh against his claim. The Board also stated that Mr. Arneson’s statements were “not competent medical evidence.” R. at 17. This is true. But if the Board found his testimony credible, Mr. Arneson would not need competent medical evidence to substantiate his claim. See Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 488, 495-96 (1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313,
holding disability benefits from us civil service are community property holding that per 38 cfr  3303b medical evidence of nexus is not required for benefits if the veteran demonstrates continuity of symptoms between his present disability and service holding that section 511a of title 38 did not preclude a state trial court from requiring the payment of child support from va disability benefits because the state court was not reviewing the administrators decision finding the veteran eligible for specific disability benefits holding that 38 cfr  201106 as then worded was dispositive of the interpretation of 38 usc  1311 and required de novo determination of the veterans disability upon the entirety of the record including any new evidence presented by the surviving spouse holding that no federal nexus is required