Citation Nr: 19115131 Decision Date: 03/01/19 Archive Date: 02/28/19 DOCKET NO. 17-37 563 DATE: March 1, 2019 ORDER The petition to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease, for VA compensation purposes only, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An unappealed April 1998 rating decision denied service connection for periodontal disease, for VA compensation purposes only. 2. The evidence received subsequent to the April 1998 rating decision does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The April 1998 rating decision that denied service connection for periodontal disease, for VA compensation purposes only, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. 2. New and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the Veteran’s claim for service connection for periodontal disease, for VA compensation purposes only. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from January 1974 to January 1978 and from May 1979 to December 1997. This issue is on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision. REFERRED The issue of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability, to include periodontal disease, for treatment purposes only, has been raised by the July 2015 Notice of Disagreement and the July 2017 Substantive Appeal, but this issue does not appear to have been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. Specifically, the AOJ should refer the claim for dental treatment to the appropriate VA Medical Center. 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease, for VA compensation purposes only. The AOJ, by a decision entered in April 1998, denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for periodontal disease, for VA compensation purposes only. The AOJ notified the Veteran of its decision and of his appellate rights in a letter dated in April 1998, but he did not initiate an appeal of the AOJ’s decision within one year. New and material evidence was also not received within a year of the decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). As a result, the AOJ’s decision became final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103. Accordingly, the claim may now be considered on the merits only if new and material evidence has been received since the time of the prior adjudication. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence is considered “new” if it was not previously submitted to agency decision makers. “Material” evidence is 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). In determining whether evidence is new and material, the “credibility of the evidence is to be presumed.” Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). In the April 1998 rating decision, service connection for periodontal disease was denied because the claim was not well-grounded. Specifically, the AOJ found that the Veteran did not have a dental disability for which compensation could be established. Periodontal disease is not considered a disability for VA compensation purposes and may be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of determining entitlement to a VA dental examination or outpatient dental treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. The evidence received since the AOJ’s April 1998 rating decision includes lay statements from the Veteran and his representative, and a June 2015 letter from the Veteran’s dentist. This evidence is new because it has not previously been submitted. However, the evidence does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim and thus is not material to the claim. Specifically, in the June 2015 letter, the Veteran’s dentist stated that the Veteran was seen for treatment in February 2015. An oral examination revealed bone loss, missing teeth, presence of calculus, and pockets with bleeding upon probing. The dentist recommended the Veteran seek further treatment with a Periodontist. The new medical and lay evidence does not establish a disabling dental condition for VA compensation purposes. Periodontal disease, bone loss, and dental or alveolar abscesses are not considered disabilities for VA compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. Compensation is available for loss of teeth only if such is due to loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible. Id. Although the new evidence documents loss of teeth, there is nothing to suggest that it is due to the loss of substance of body of maxilla or mandible during service through trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis. Id. The loss of the alveolar process as a result of periodontal disease is not considered disabling. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913. Thus, although new, this evidence is not material to the Veteran’s claim. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the Veteran’s arguments in support of his claim. Although laypersons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), the specific issue in this case (whether he has a dental disability for which VA compensation may be granted) falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (laypersons not competent to diagnose cancer). As a layperson, it is not shown that he possesses the medical expertise to provide such an opinion. The medical evidence of record is only against the Veteran’s claim. In short, the evidence received since the April 1998 rating decision is not new and material evidence. The Veteran’s request to reopen his previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease, for VA compensation purposes only, is denied. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Shauna M. Watkins, Counsel