RO informed him that all actions had been taken to locate his SMRs “without success.” R. at 247-48. Therefore, when the appellant testified concerning his in-service hip injury, he was unaware that his SMRs were missing, and he no doubt reasonably believed that his testimony could- be substantiated by information available in his SMRs. There is no indication in the Board’s decision, however, that it evaluated and discussed either this. sequence of events or the effect, if any, of Dr. Tabor’s medical opinion that the appellant’s current disability is an “appropriate” result of the in-service hip injury that he described. This is evidence that may be favorable to the appellant and that should have been discussed. The Board erred in failing to adequately consider and discuss it. See Scha (<HOLDING>); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 401, 406
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 statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial holding that the courts caselaw establishes a heightened duty to assist when the appellants medical records have been lost or destroyed holding that where there are deficiencies in the record the alj is under an affirmative obligation to develop the relevant medical history even when the claimant is represented by counsel holding that vas duty to assist is particularly great in light of the unavailability of the veterans exit examination and full army medical records