Citation Nr: 18148378 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 16-37 781 DATE: November 7, 2018 ORDER The petition to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin rash is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. In a February 2007 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin rash. The Veteran did not file a notice of disagreement (NOD) to appeal the February 2007 decision. 2. No evidence not previously of record has been submitted which, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The February 2007 rating decision that denied service connection for a skin rash is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2017). 2. As new and material evidence submitted since the February 2007 denial has not been received, the criteria for reopening the claim for service connection for a skin rash are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1964 to August 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. 1. The petition to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin rash A finally adjudicated claim may be reopened if the claimant submits new and material evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. New evidence means existing 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. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a) create a low threshold, with the phrase “raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim” enabling rather than precluding reopening and not constituting a third requirement that must be met before the claim is reopened. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). For establishing whether new and material evidence has been submitted, the credibility of the evidence is presumed unless the evidence is inherently false or untrue or, if the evidence is in the form of a statement or other assertion, it is beyond the competence of the person making the assertion. Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216, 220 (1994); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). In a February 2007 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a skin rash. The RO noted that the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam, and presumed exposure to Agent Orange. The evidence reviewed included the Veteran’s service treatment records, which were negative for complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of a chronic skin rash. The Veteran was notified of the decision by a February 2007 letter. He did not initiate an appeal or submit new and material evidence within one year of the rating decision, and it became final. In July 2014, the Veteran requested to reopen his service connection claim for a skin rash. A letter sent in July 2014 notified the Veteran of the type of evidence required to reopen his claim. In a January 2015 rating decision, the RO denied reopening the claim of service connection for a skin rash due to a lack of new and material evidence. Evidence received since the final February 2007 rating decision consists of a July 2014 lay statement from the Veteran’s niece, and VA medical records dated between 2012 and 2014. The lay statement is cumulative in nature and repetitive of the Veteran’s previous assertions that he has a skin rash caused by his military service. See Morton v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 508 (1992); Mingo v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 51 (1992) (observing that evidence of a claimant’s current condition is not generally relevant to the issue of service connection, absent some competent linkage to military service). The VA medical records are not material, as they fail to show that the Veteran has a current skin rash that is etiologically related to his military service. A letter was sent to the Veteran in July 2017 requesting he provide additional information regarding post-service treatment for a skin rash. However, the Veteran did not submit any new documentation. (Continued on the next page)   As new and material evidence has not been received, the claim of service connection for a skin rash may not be reopened. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Miller, Associate Counsel