Citation Nr: 18146501 Decision Date: 10/31/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 16-20 796 DATE: October 31, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having not been received, the application to reopen a previously denied claim for entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, claimed as dermatitis/eczema (previously claimed as rash on neck, arms, and legs) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a July 1974 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s initial claim for service connection for a skin condition. The decision became final as a notice of disagreement and/or new and material evidence was not submitted within one year of that decision. 2. The evidence added to the record since the last final rating decision denying service connection for a skin condition does not relate to unestablished facts necessary to substantiate a claim of service connection. 3. The Veteran’s pre-existing skin condition was not shown to be aggravated by his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW As the evidence received subsequent to the July 1974 rating decision is not new and material, the requirements to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, claimed as dermatitis/eczema (previously claimed as rash on neck, arms, and legs) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the US Marine Corps from December 1973 to May 1974 and the Army from January 1991 to March 1991. New and Material Evidence In order for evidence to be sufficient to reopen a previously disallowed claim, it must be both new and material. If the evidence is new, but not material, the inquiry ends and the claim cannot be reopened. See Smith v. West, 12 Vet. App. 312, 314 (1999); Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 140 (1991). Under the relevant regulation, “new” evidence is defined as 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. If it finds that the submitted evidence is new and material, VA may then proceed to evaluate the merits of the claim on the basis of all evidence of record, but only after ensuring that the duty to assist the veteran in developing the facts necessary for the claim has been satisfied. See Elkins v. West, 12 Vet. App. 209 (1999); but see 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (eliminates the concept of a well-grounded claim). The threshold for determining whether new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim is low, and consideration is not limited to whether the newly submitted evidence relates specifically to the reason the claim was last denied. Rather, consideration should include whether the evidence could reasonably substantiate the claim were the claim to be reopened, either by triggering the Secretary’s duty to assist or through consideration of an alternative theory of entitlement. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-18 (2010). Only evidence presented since the last final denial on any basis (either upon the merits of the case, or upon a previous adjudication that no new and material evidence has been presented) will be evaluated in the context of the entire record. Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273 (1996). However, for the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been received, the credibility of the such evidence is to be presumed unless “patently incredible” See Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216 (1994); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a previously denied claim for entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, claimed as dermatitis/eczema (previously claimed as rash on neck, arms, and legs). The Veteran is seeking service connection for a skin condition which he asserts was aggravated by hot and damp conditions while in service. This claim was previously denied by the RO in a July 1974 rating decision on the basis that the Veteran had a lifelong history of intermittent rashes over his skin and was not aggravated by service. The Veteran did not appeal that decision, nor did he submit any new and material evidence within a year of receiving it and is now final. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242. The Veteran submitted a new claim for service connection for dermatitis in September 2014. The claim was denied in an April 2015 rating decision due to the finding that the evidence revealed that dermatitis existed prior to service and no worsening or continuity was shown from service to the present. The Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) in April 2015 and his appeal was perfected in May 2016 following the issuance of an April 2016 statement of the case (SOC). After a careful review of the evidence, the Board finds that the claim for service connection for a skin condition should not be reopened. Since the last final denial in July 1974 for service connection for a skin condition, the Veteran has not submitted any additional evidence to support his claim that his dermatitis was aggravated by his service. Specifically, the Veterans medical record is silent for complaints or treatment of his skin condition until his VA examination in March 2015. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s claimed condition, which clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, was not aggravated beyond its natural progression by an in-service event, injury, or illness. In support of his opinion, the examiner stated that the absence of a specific diagnosis makes it impossible to state with any degree of certainty, if it was aggravated beyond its natural progression and the absence of medical notes pertaining to this condition since 1974 adds to the degree of uncertainty. Further, the Veteran’s service treatment record shows that he was medically discharged due to his skin condition and the medical board noted his condition as not incurred in or aggravated by his service. Additionally, while a second copy of the Veteran’s service treatment records were added to the claim folder in 2015, these records are the same as those that were before VA prior to the last final denial of the claim.   Accordingly, the Board finds that new and material evidence has not been submitted in connection with the claim of service connection for a skin condition and the claim is not reopened. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Department of Veterans Affairs