Citation Nr: 18148268 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 15-43 691 DATE: November 7, 2018 ORDER The appeal to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder to include gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), duodenal ulcer disease, and severe antroduodenitis is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence received since the March 2008 rating decision is not new and material in that it does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to reopen to claim of entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty from May 1989 to October 1989 and from July 1996 to September 1996. 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder. The Veteran’s claim was first denied in a May 2003 rating decision. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) in July 2003. The RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) in December 2003. The Veteran did not appeal the decision and it became final. A March 2008 rating decision continued the denial. The Veteran did not appeal the decision, and it became final. A previously denied claim may be reopened by the submission of new and material evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Evidence is new if it has not been previously submitted to agency decision makers. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Evidence is material if it, either by itself or considered in conjunction with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. Id. New and material evidence cannot be cumulative or 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. Id. When determining whether the claim should be reopened, the credibility of the newly submitted evidence is to be presumed. Fortuck v. Principi, 14 Vet. App. 173, 179-80 (2003); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510 (1992). Furthermore, in Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) clarified that the phrase “raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim” is meant to create a low threshold that enables, rather than precludes, reopening. Specifically, the Court stated that reopening is required when the newly submitted evidence, combined with VA assistance and considered with the other evidence of record, raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id. The May 2003 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claim finding that although the Veteran had diagnoses of gastrointestinal disorders, there was no evidence to show that the conditions had their onset in service or were otherwise related to service. The March 2008 rating decision found that new and material evidence had not been received, and the claim was denied. New evidence received since the March 2008 denial includes a January 2015 letter from Dr. L.M.F. indicating that the Veteran had been his patient since January 2004. The letter further states that the Veteran suffers from chronic gastritis and had been prescribed medication. The evidence is new because it has not been previously considered. However, the evidence is not material because it does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. The Veteran has not submitted any evidence to suggest that his gastrointestinal conditions are in any way related to service. As material evidence has not been submitted, the request to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disability is denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the doctrine of reasonable doubt does not apply. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.A. Williams, Associate Counsel