Citation Nr: 18145835 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 14-26 321 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER The claim of entitlement to service connection for extensive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is reopened for reconsideration. REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for extensive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.   FINDINGS OF FACT After a July 2010 rating decision became final, VA received relevant official service records that existed and had not previously been associated with the claims file. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for reconsidering the Veteran’s claim for service connection for extensive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1993 to November 1993. The matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. The Veteran requested a Board hearing in her substantive appeal, VA Form 9, but later withdrew her request in a September 2018 letter. Accordingly, the Board deems the Veteran’s request for a hearing to be withdrawn. 39 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). New and Material Evidence The Veteran’s claim seeking entitlement to service connection for extensive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia was denied in a July 2010 rating decision. The Veteran did not file a notice of disagreement and took no action to appeal or seek reconsideration. Accordingly, the July 2010 rating decision is considered final. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302(b)(1), 20.1103. Generally, if a claim of entitlement to service connection has been previously denied and that decision has become final, the claim can be reopened and reconsidered only if new and material evidence is presented. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. New evidence is defined as existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Material evidence is evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence previously of record, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 118 (2010). Generally, the credibility of newly submitted evidence is presumed when determining whether a claim should be reopened. See Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). Moreover, except as otherwise provided, if at any time following issuance of a decision VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided a prior claim, VA will reconsider the claim. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156 (c), 20.1000(b). By operation of § 3.156(c), an original claim is not just reopened, it is reconsidered and serves as the date of the claim and the earliest date for which benefits may be granted. Stowers v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 550, 554 (2014). Here, the evidence for service connection for extensive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia considered at the time of the July 2010 rating decision consisted of the Veteran’s service treatment records, VA treatment records, and a January 2010 VA examination. Service connection was denied on the basis that the condition existed prior to the Veteran’s entry into service. The evidence received since the July 2010 rating decision consists of additional VA treatment records, an August 2013 VA examination, and lay statements from the Veteran and her mother regarding the Veteran’s medical history and military sexual trauma. Also, her service personnel records were obtained. These records were received or associated with the claims file after the claim became final. They constitute relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim. Therefore, the claim will be reconsidered. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. The claim for entitlement to service connection for extensive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is remanded. This issue is remanded for two reasons. The new and material evidence associated with the claims file reflects the possibility that, even if the Veteran’s condition pre-existed service, it may have been aggravated during service. Specifically, the Veteran has been service-connected for PTSD based on military sexual trauma (MST) and has submitted lay statements detailing the repeated MST she endured while in the military. A new VA examination is needed on this basis. Also significant is the fact that the Veteran has been seen by a private treating gynecologist, but those records are not associated with the file. Reasonable efforts should be made to obtain the private medical records. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issues of service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus because no VA examiner has opined on the issues. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to submit, or to identify and authorize VA to obtain, any private medical records related to treatment she has received related to her extensive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Request any records properly identified. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, notify the Veteran of the attempts made and allow her the opportunity to obtain the records herself. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of her cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The examiner must opine on the following: (a.) Whether the diagnosis is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including her military sexual trauma. (b.) Whether it clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) preexisted the Veteran’s service. If the examiner finds it did clearly and unmistakably preexist service, the examiner must opine whether it was clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by service. (Continued on the next page)   3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any hearing loss or tinnitus. The examiner must opine whether a current diagnosis of hearing loss or tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including noise exposure. C. BOSELY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Snyder, Associate Counsel