Citation Nr: 18142441 Decision Date: 10/15/18 Archive Date: 10/15/18 DOCKET NO. 17-27 348 DATE: October 15, 2018 ORDER As new and material evidence has not been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a digestive disability, to include bilharzia (schistosomiasis), the appeal is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A November 1980 Board decision denied service connection for a digestive disability, to include bilharzia, on the basis that the evidence did not show that the disability was incurred in or etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. 2. The evidence received since the November 1980 decision is new to the record, but does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the merits of the claim, and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim of entitlement to service connection for a digestive disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The November 1980 Board decision that denied service connection for a digestive disability is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100. 2. New and material evidence has not been received since the November 1980 decision, and the claim of service connection for entitlement to service connection for a digestive disability is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a digestive disability, bilharzia (schistosomiasis). The Veteran seeks to reopen a previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for bilharzia. A November 1980 Board decision denied the claim because the Veteran had not established that he had a disability that was incurred in, or etiologically related, to active service. A Board decision is final unless the Chairman of the Board orders reconsideration. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7103(a), 7104; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(a). An exception to these rules is provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5108, which states that if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim that has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. The question of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a previously denied claim must be addressed by the Board in the first instance because the issue goes to the Board’s jurisdiction to reach and adjudicate the underlying claim on a de novo basis. Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996). If the Board finds that no such evidence has been offered, that is where the analysis must end, and further analysis beyond consideration of whether the evidence received is new and material is neither required nor permitted. Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996). New evidence is existing evidence not previously considered by VA. Material evidence is 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 must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In determining whether evidence is new and material, the credibility of the evidence is generally presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510 (1992). New and material evidence is not required as to each previously unproven element of a claim in order to reopen. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). There is a low threshold for determining whether evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim. The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for bilharzia was denied because the service medical records did not show that he had complained of, been treated for, or diagnosed with the disease in service or that he had incurred the disease within one year of separation from service. The Veteran has submitted recent private medical records showing that he has gastritis and helicobacter pylori. That evidence does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim of entitlement to service connection for a digestive disability, to include bilharzia, because it does not address the etiological relationship between the Veteran’s service and post service development of bilharzia, gastritis, or helicobacter pylori. The evidence at the time of the previous denial showed a digestive disability. The evidence did not show the presence or complaint of digestive symptoms during service or within one year following service, and did not show a relationship between a current digestive disability and service. The Veteran has not submitted new evidence that is not redundant or cumulative of any inservice symptoms, symptoms within one year following service, or any evidence relating a current digestive disability to service. Therefore, as new and material evidence has not been received, the claim may not be reopened, and the appeal must be denied. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Gillian A. Flynn, Associate Counsel