Citation Nr: 18140194 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-12 154 DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER The application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD was initially denied in a November 2002 rating decision and then denied on appeal in a December 2006 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision. The Veteran did not appeal the December 2006 Board decision, and the decision became final. 2. In April 2013, the Veteran filed a request to reopen the previously denied claim. 3. In March 2014, the Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision that denied reopening the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD because the evidence submitted was not new and material. That decision forms the basis of this present appeal. 4. Evidence associated with the claims file since the December 2006 Board decision is cumulative or redundant of the evidence previously of record and is not sufficient to raise reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW Since the December 2006 Board decision, new and material evidence has not been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, and the claim is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104(a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.1100 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran honorably served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1959 until February 1961. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD As previously noted in December 2006, the Board issued a final and binding decision which upheld the prior denial of the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. A final decision cannot be reopened unless new and material evidence is presented. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012). “New evidence” means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision-makers. “Material evidence” means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and it must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2018). At the time of the December 2006 Board decision, the evidence of record included: the September 2006 hearing transcript; the Veteran’s service personnel records; the Veteran’s service treatment records; the Veteran’s DD-214; VA treatment records from January 1995 to June 1995, July 1995 to June 2003, July 2003 to May 2005, and June 2005 to September 2006; and two lay statements by the Veteran in August 1999 and June 2003 that contained details regarding her service and the sexual assault stressor she reported. In May 2013, the Veteran requested that VA reopen her previously denied claim. Records associated with the claims file since the December 2006 Board decision include a 1999 consent form for a PTSD research study, additional medical treatment records from February 2004 and March 2004, VA treatment records from March 2014 to February 2016, a May 2014 letter from the Veteran’s medical provider, multiple lay statements, and the Veteran’s August 2018 Appellate Brief. The June 2004 VA treatment records previously reviewed, include the February 2004 and March 2004 medical treatment records submitted for consideration; therefore, the records are not new. The VA treatment records from March 2014 through February 2016 confirm her diagnosis of PTSD and show ongoing treatment for related symptoms. The consent form, lay statements, medical professional’s letter, and appellate brief all address the current diagnosis of PTSD. The VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran has received individual and group treatment for PTSD. The lay statements from the Veteran confirm her current diagnosis. The letter from the Veteran’s doctor establishes that the Veteran has been under the doctor’s care since 2013 for PTSD. The Veteran did not submit any new and material evidence related to the occurrence of the in-service stressor. The Veteran’s claim was previously denied based upon a finding that the probative evidence of record supported a conclusion that there was no corroborated in-service stressor. The evidence submitted does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. The evidence of record previously established she is diagnosed with PTSD; however, the in-service stressor, service sexual trauma, is still not corroborated, and the Veteran has not submitted any new evidence regarding her stressor that could aid in corroborating it. In conclusion, the evidence received is insufficient to reopen the Veteran’s claim to PTSD because it is redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. N. Fournier, Law Clerk