United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

first identify the factual questions in dispute; second, summarize all of
the evidence on each disputed question of fact; third, state which
version he or she believes; and, fourth, explain in detail why the
chosen version was more credible than the other version or versions of
the event …. [Mandatory factors] include: (1) The witness's
opportunity and capacity to observe the event or act in question; (2)
the witness's character; (3); any prior inconsistent statement by the
witness; (4) a witness's bias, or lack of bias; (5) the contradiction of
the witness's version of events by other evidence or its consistency
with other evidence; (6) the inherent improbability of the witness's
version of events; and (7) the witness's demeanor.
Like Spithaler, the Board has applied Hillen consistently, and this Court has
used its guidance to assess the record. Haebe, 288 F.3d at 1301 n.30; Redschlag v.
Dep’t of the Army, 89 M.S.P.R. 589, 598 (1991), aff’d 32 Fed. Appx. 543 (Fed.
Cir. 2002); Grant v. Dep’t of Air Force, 61 M.S.P.R. 370, 370 n.4 (1994), aff’d 53
F.3d 347 (Fed. Cir 1995); Arenz v. Department of the Army, 40 M.S.P.R. 307, 310
(1989), aff’d 976 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir 1992); Addison v. Dep’t of Treasury, 30
M.S.P.R. 615, 617-18 aff’d 864 F.2d 148 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
It is not enough merely to express disbelief. Credibility determinations also
must include an explanation for their basis, and address evidence in the record
material to a conclusion. Grant, 61 M.S.P.R. at 374-75; Arenz, 40 M.S.P.R. at
310 8
8 These considerations are explained in-depth in contexts where intent and
credibility are principal issues. In disability cases credibility determinations must
be supported by objective evidence in the record. Cline v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 560,
565 (8 th Cir. 1991) In asylum determinations, a finding of “evasive” cannot stand
when the witness’s testimony is consistent. Castenda-Castillo v. Gonzalez, 464
F.3d 112, 126 (1 st Cir. 2006)
36