Citation Nr: 18157803 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 15-08 765A DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having not been submitted, the application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for arthritis is denied. REMANDED A compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from 1965 to 1988. 2. In June 1995, the Regional Office (RO) denied service connection for arthritis. The Veteran did not appeal and that decision became final. 3. The Veteran filed a subsequent claim in April 2008, which was denied in August 2008 because new and material evidence had not been submitted. He did not appeal and that decision became final. 4. The evidence submitted since the August 2008 decision does not establish a link between the current diagnoses and service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The August 2008 rating decision, which denied service connection for arthritis, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012). 2. The evidence received since the August 2008 rating decision is not new and material; the claim for arthritis is denied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159 (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). In order to be “new and material” evidence, the evidence must not be cumulative or redundant, and “must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim,” which has been found to be enabling, not preclusive. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). When determining whether the claim should be reopened, the credibility of the newly submitted evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1991). Historically, in June 1995, the RO denied service connection for arthritis. The Veteran did not appeal and that decision became final. In August 2008, the RO denied re-opening a claim for service connection for arthritis because no new and material evidence had been submitted. Specifically, there was no evidence of the onset of arthritis during active duty and there was no medical opinion relating the arthritis to any disease, injury, or event in service. He did not appeal and that decision became final. The August 2008 rating decision is the last final denial. The Veteran applied to reopen the claim, which was denied in October 2011 and forms the basis of this appeal. Evidence received since the August 2008 decision includes VA treatment records, examination reports, and additional statements from the Veteran. Much of this evidence is unrelated to arthritis. While some of the newly-submitted evidence continues to support a current diagnosis of arthritis, it does not establish that the diagnosis is related to service. No treatment records have been submitted which show that he incurred arthritis during service. Additionally, no medical opinions have been provided which state that the current arthritis is related to service. Therefore, without any competent medical evidence or opinion that the Veteran’s arthritis is related to service, none of the newly-submitted medical evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim, and therefore, the evidence is not new and material for purposes of reopening the claim. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements that arthritis is related to service; however, these statements are essentially what he has contended all along and are not new for purposes of reopening the claim. Under these circumstances, new and material evidence to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for arthritis has not been received. As such, the appeal is denied. As a procedural matter, VA has received additional medical documentation since the issuance of the last supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). This additional medical evidence largely relates to issues that are not currently part of this appeal. When this evidence does refer to the issue on appeal, the information contained is merely cumulative and/or redundant of the evidence previously received and considered by the RO. As such, waiver of RO consideration is not necessary. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). REASONS FOR REMAND With respect to hearing loss, the Veteran was last afforded a VA audiology examination in May of 2011. In his appellate brief, he stated that the record does not adequately reflect the current state of his hearing loss disability. Accordingly, a new examination is warranted in order to determine the current level of severity of his service-connected hearing loss disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding, VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim in light of all of the evidence of record. If any benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a   reasonable period of time within which to respond. Then, return the case to the Board. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Kokolas, Associate Counsel