Not exactly. This is somewhat complicated issue which depends on the context of the issue...however, in many instances, the burden of proof is on the VA to show that a condition is not service connected or rateable. (The main issue is covered in
Gilbert v. Derwinski , 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (Vet. App. 1990).
To really cover the issues raised, it would take many pages...sometime the burden is on the Veteran to show certain things. However, the VA has a strict "duty to assist" the Veteran in developing their claim and they have to give "reasons and bases" for denial of claim.
@
Warrior644 you have given, and continue to give, a lot of very helpful advice and support to members of this site and to Veterans. I don't mean to "sharpshoot" you or to detract from the very helpful support you give. I just want to make clear that the burden is not always on the Veteran (and generally, it is not). The "duty to assist" places a lot of the burden on the VA (or, in IDES cases, oftentimes on the military- though, in IDES cases, the regulatory requirements and burdens are slightly different- at least as written in IDES regs; I am not sure that the regulations accurately reflect the statutory requirement or, superior regulatory requirements...I think that there are many legal challenges apparent in the entire paradigm applied by the military in the IDES system).
My main concern is that folks understand who bears the burden once a claim is made. The VA has a strict obligation to assist the Veteran in developing their claims.
It is very important to understand who bears the burden of proof at each level of the process, when (if ever) the burden shifts, and to understand the substantive standards (and how to meet them) to support a claim for service connection or for proper rating of a compensable condition.