Citation Nr: 18151702 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 16-47 849 DATE: November 20, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A July 2002 rating decision denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss; the Veteran did not appeal that decision, and new and material evidence was not received within one year of notice of its issuance. 2. Prior to the current application to reopen his claim, the Veteran’s last application to reopen the claim was denied in September 2011, and new and material evidence was not received within one year of notice of its issuance. 2. Evidence received more than one year since the September 2011 rating decision is cumulative or redundant of at the time of the prior decision, and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 3. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1980 to November 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss based on new and material evidence is denied. A decision of the RO becomes final and is not subject to revision on the same factual basis unless a notice of disagreement is filed within one year of the notice of the decision, or new and material evidence is received during the appeal period after the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103. If a claim of entitlement to service connection has been previously denied and that decision became final, the claim can be reopened and reconsidered only if new and material evidence is presented with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; see Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 140, 145 (1991). New evidence is defined as 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 RO denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss in a July 2002 rating decision based on lack of evidence that the Veteran had hearing loss in service or within 12 months of discharge. The Veteran was informed of this decision in July 2002, he did not appeal the decision, and new and material evidence was not received within one year of notice of the decision. The Veteran also sought to reopen his claim on several occasions but did not appeal the RO’s last decision in September 2011 that he had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim. The September 2011 rating decision became final and it is from this point that the Board must determine if sufficient evidence has been received to reopen the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.1103; Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 252 (2010); Juarez v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 537, 542 (2008) (in adjudicating a petition to reopen consideration must be provided to evidence received since the last final rating decision on a claim, whether a denial of the original claim or a petition to reopen). Evidence received more than one year since the September 2011 rating decision does not constitute new and material evidence regarding the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss claims. Specifically, in its original denial of the claim, the RO considered the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) and post-service treatment records to include VA examinations, in its conclusion that the Veteran did not provide evidence of a link between his hearing loss and his service. The evidence received since the September 2011 denial include additional VA treatment records, VA examinations, and Social Security Administration (SSA) records. However, this evidence does not show a link between the Veteran’s hearing loss and his service. The Veteran has not presented any new evidence that would create a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran's claim nor does it trigger VA's duty to assist by obtaining medical opinions or examinations. The threshold for reopening a claim is low, but it is a threshold nonetheless. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). Here, the threshold has not been met and the appeal is denied. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. T. Emmart, Associate Counsel