Citation Nr: 18146930 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 15-44 596 DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER The application to reopen a claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include depression and anxiety, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from November 1985 to January 1991. 2. In an unappealed August 2011 rating decision, the Regional Office (RO) denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety and depression with alcohol abuse. 3. The evidence submitted since the August 2011 rating decision does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The August 2011 rating decision, which denied service connection for anxiety/depression with alcohol abuse is final. 38 C.F.R. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2017). 2. The evidence received since the August 2011 rating decision is not new and material; the claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prior unappealed rating decisions may not be reopened absent the submission of new and material evidence warranting revision of the previous decision. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. “New” evidence means evidence “not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers.” “Material” evidence means “evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, related to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The Veteran was initially denied service connection for anxiety and depression with alcohol abuse in August 2011 based on a finding that there was no evidence that an acquired psychiatric disorder was caused by or occurred during active service. The evidence of record at the time consisted of service treatment records (STRs) and post-service medical treatment records. The evidence received since the August 2011 rating decision includes additional STRs, additional post-service medical records diagnosing depression NOS, a generalized anxiety disorder, and an adjustment disorder NOS, a transcript of a July 2018 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge by the Veteran and a friend, and a July 2018 lay statement from the Veteran reinforcing his assertion that his acquired psychiatric disorder was the result of the stress he felt while in service. The evidence is new to the extent that it was not considered in the August 2011 rating decision; however, it is not material. While the clinical records reflect ongoing treatment for anxiety, depression, and alcohol dependence, and the Veteran asserted that his psychiatric disorders are related to service, this evidence is essentially duplicative of the evidence considered in the August 2011 rating decision. Similarly, the STRs submitted by the Veteran reflect July 1989 treatment for alcohol dependence, including a hospitalization after a four-day drinking binge during which he related he was depressed and initially reported some suicidal ideation but subsequently denied being suicidal but rather was seeking help with his alcohol abuse. During that hospitalization, he reflected that he had had a drinking problem since his teen years, which weighs against a finding that alcohol abuse was due to service. These records were considered by the August 2011 rating decision as STRs for this time period were reviewed. In sum, the Veteran has contended all along that his anxiety and depression were due to service and that he used alcohol as a coping mechanism. In addition, while the new clinical records show ongoing treatment, they do not establish a relationship between his current diagnoses and service. As such, the application to reopen is denied. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements and sworn testimony that his STRs were not fully considered; however, the August 2011 rating decision reviewed the service treatment records and acknowledged the in-service alcohol abuse counseling and treatment. Therefore, the evidence does not show that the August 2011 rating decision misstated the STRs or failed to consider the in-service treatment. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any outstanding issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to   address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Spigelman, Associate Counsel