Citation Nr: 18146311 Decision Date: 10/31/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 16-34 989 DATE: October 31, 2018 ORDER As new and material evidence has not been received, the request to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus with weight loss is denied. As new and material evidence has not been received, the request to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for numbing of both hands is denied. As new and material evidence has not been received, the request to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for an undiagnosed illness manifested by skin rash is denied. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. In a final April 2007 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus with weight loss. 2. The evidence received since the April 2007 rating decision is either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record and is not so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus with weight loss. 3. In a final September 2009 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for numbing of both hands. 4. The evidence received since the September 2009 rating decision is either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record and is not so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim for entitlement to service connection for numbing of both hands. 5. In a final September 2009 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for an undiagnosed illness manifested by skin rash. 6. The evidence received since the September 2009 rating decision is either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record and is not so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim for entitlement to service connection for an undiagnosed illness manifested by skin rash. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The April 2007 rating decision denying the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus with weight loss is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100. 2. Evidence received since the April 2007 denial is not new and material; hence, the criteria for reopening the claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus with weight loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. The September 2009 rating decision denying the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for numbing of both hands and an undiagnosed illness manifested by a skin rash is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100. 4. Evidence received since the September 2009 denial is not new and material; hence, the criteria for reopening the claim for entitlement to service connection for numbing of both hands have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 5. Evidence received since the March 2002 denial is not new and material; hence, the criteria for reopening the claim for entitlement to service connection for an undiagnosed illness manifest by a skin rash have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1979 to September 1983 and from January 1991 to May 1991. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2015 rating decision. New and Material Evidence Historically, February 1996 and January 1997 rating decisions denied a claim for service connection for an undiagnosed illness manifested by a skin rash as there was no evidence which established that the Veteran’s diagnosed skin rash was related to his service. A January 2003 rating decision declined to reopen the Veteran’s claim for service connection for an undiagnosed skin condition manifested by a rash as no new and material evidence had been submitted and also denied service connection for numbing of both hands as there was no diagnosis of such a condition and no indication that such symptomology had onset during the Veteran’s active service. An April 2007 rating decision denied service connection for diabetes mellitus with weight loss as the Veteran’s diabetes was not found to have occurred in or was caused by his active duty service. A September 2009 rating decision declined to reopen the Veteran’s claim for service connection for an undiagnosed skin condition manifest by a rash and service connection for numbing of both hands as there was no new and material evidence. The Veteran did not appeal these decisions and they are now final. 38 U.S.C. § 7104. In August 2015, the Veteran sought to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus with weight loss, an undiagnosed illness manifested by skin rash, and numbness in his hands. VA may reopen and review a claim that has been previously denied if new and material evidence is submitted by or on behalf of a Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); Hodge v. West, 155 F. 3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Board must consider the question of whether new and material evidence has been received because it goes to the Board’s jurisdiction to reach the underlying claim and adjudicate the claim de novo. 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 new and material evidence has been offered, that is where the analysis must end. Butler v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 167 (1996). New evidence is evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. 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. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last 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 new and material evidence has been received, VA must initially decide whether evidence associated with the claims file since the prior final denial is new. That analysis is undertaken by comparing newly received evidence with the evidence previously of record. After evidence is determined to be new, the next question is whether it is material. The Board must review all evidence submitted by or on behalf of a claimant since the last final denial on any basis to determine whether a claim must be reopened. Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273 (1996). For purposes of determining whether new evidence is material, the credibility of the new evidence is 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. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). The Board notes that its task is to first decide whether new and material evidence has been received, as opposed to whether the evidence actually substantiates the Veteran’s claims. Pertinent evidence added to the record since the final April 2007 and September 2009 final RO decisions includes statements from the Veteran, VA medical center (VAMC) records, VA examinations, and previously submitted copies of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) and his military personnel record. The previously submitted records are not new to the record. VAMC records indicate that the Veteran has a diagnosis of and received treatment for diabetes. However, there was no discussion or opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s diabetes contained in the VAMC records added to the record since the April 2007 final RO decision. Similarly, there is no indication of the Veteran complaining of or receiving treatment for numbness of his hands contained in the VAMC records dated since the September 2009 final rating decision. In November 2009, a VAMC record indicated the Veteran presented with a rash. He was referred to dermatology. In December 2009, a VAMC record showed the Veteran to have presented with a rash on his body. He was referred to dermatology. In June 2010, a VAMC record showed the Veteran to have reported a rash on his neck, chest, and back since 1991. He was diagnosed with chronic dermatitis. In April 2018, a VAMC record showed the Veteran to have no complaints of numbness or tingling in his hands. The Board notes that the regulation does not require new and material evidence as to each previously unproven element of a claim, merely that there is a reasonable possibility of an allowance of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). However, the Board finds that none of the evidence obtained and made a part of the record since either the April 2007 or September 2009 decisions establish that the Veteran’s diabetes or skin rash were incurred in or related to his active service in any way or that he had been diagnosed with a condition of numbness in his hands. Rather, the newly submitted evidence of record, including the Veteran’s statements, is cumulative of statements and medical evidence submitted previously. Though the VAMC records and Veteran’s statements establish that the Veteran has diabetes and a skin rash, none of the evidence establishes or purports to establish that these conditions were incurred in or were as a result of the Veteran’s active duty service. Furthermore, the only new evidence regarding the Veteran’s claim for numbness of his hands, the April 2018 VAMC record, establishes that he does not have such a condition or symptomology. Thus, while the VA records and the Veteran’s statements are new to the record as they were not previously physically of record, they are not material as there is no information contained in them that indicates that the Veteran’s diabetes or skin rash has ever been related to his active duty service or that he has ever been diagnosed with a condition of numbness of his hands or that such a condition was related to his active duty service. Indeed, none of the VAMC treatment records show that the medical providers related the Veteran’s diabetes or rash symptomology to his active duty service. Additionally, there is no indication in those records, other than the Veteran’s report of a rash since 1991, that the Veteran, himself, related his diabetes or rash to his active duty service. The Board finds, then, that the new evidence associated with the claims file since the April 2007 and September 2009 rating decisions do not relate to any unproven element of the previously denied claims. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and material evidence has not been submitted and the claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus with weight loss, numbness of the hands, or an undiagnosed illness manifested by a skin rash are not reopened. Annoni v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 463 (1993). J. CONNOLLY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Parrish, Associate Counsel