given to the veteran. See Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 55 (“[If] the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise,” the claim is granted, and if “a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, ... the claim is denied.”). Contrary to Mr. Gilbert’s argument, the Board is not circumventing the “clear and unmistakable evidence” standard of the presumption of soundness by employing the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for its nexus determination. This is because the legal standards for finding a nexus and for rebutting the presumption of soundness are different, compare 38 U.S.C. § 1111, with Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 55, and the proper application of those different standards does not constitute a circumvention of one for the other. Cf. McLendon, 20 Vet.App. at 81, 83 (<HOLDING>). D. Application of Law In the decision on
holding that the board should use the preponderance standard with regard to evidence of a current disability and the indication standard  a low threshold with regard to evidence that the disability may be associated with an inservice event when evaluating whether a medical examination or opinion is warranted holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence