Citation Nr: 19121663 Decision Date: 03/25/19 Archive Date: 03/23/19 DOCKET NO. 16-55 748 DATE: March 25, 2019 ORDER As new and material evidence has not been received, the claim for entitlement to service connection for aplastic anemia is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An August 1999 rating decision denied service connection for aplastic anemia. 2. The competent and credible evidence received since the August 1999 rating decision does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim, nor does it raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for entitlement to service connection for aplastic anemia. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for aplastic anemia. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1990 to August 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the issues related to bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were not included on the Veteran’s VA Form 9, and as such were not certified for appeal. Accordingly, these issues are not currently before the Board. New and material evidence A rating action from which an appeal is not perfected becomes final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. The governing regulations provide that an appeal consists of a timely filed notice of disagreement (NOD) in writing, and after a statement of the case has been furnished, a timely filed substantive appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.200. In order to reopen a claim which has been denied by a final decision, new and material evidence must be received. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. New and material evidence means evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers; which relates, either by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim; which is 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 which raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In a February 1999 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim of service connection for aplastic anemia, indicating that the evidence of record did not show a nexus between his aplastic anemia and active service. The pertinent evidence of record at the time of the rating decision consisted of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs), post-service medical treatment records, and a December 1998 VA examination. That same month, the Veteran submitted additional post-service treatment records and buddy statements. The RO issued another rating decision in August 1999, reopening the Veteran’s claim for service connection for aplastic anemia and again denying it because the new evidence did not demonstrate a relationship between his aplastic anemia and active service. Furthermore, as it relates to the Veteran’s service in the Gulf War, the RO indicated that the evidence did not provide any objective indications of a chronic disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness. The Veteran was notified of the August 1999 rating decision; however, he took no further action. Therefore, the August 1999 decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156(b), 3.160(d), 20.302, 20.1103. In October 2014, the Veteran submitted a request to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for aplastic anemia in the form of a fully developed claim, submitted via VA Form 21-526EZ. The only new evidence received was medical treatment records that note that the Veteran had aplastic anemia. The Board finds that the competent and credible evidence received since the prior final denial consists of evidence that is cumulative or redundant and does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to reopen the claim. The medical evidence shows no indication that aplastic anemia had its onset in service or during the initial post separation year. To the extent that the Veteran has provided statements and testimony attesting to his belief that his aplastic anemia was due to his service in the Gulf War or his exposure to burning oil fields, the Board finds that evidence is redundant or cumulative of his previously considered contentions. Furthermore, the Veteran has not provided a medical nexus opinion supporting his assertion, nor is he shown to possess the medical training necessary to render competent opinions about the etiology of a disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board acknowledges the theory of entitlement advanced by the Veteran in his VA Form 9, Substantive Appeal. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that his aplastic anemia was secondary to mononucleosis, which he indicated was noted in his STRs. However, the Board notes that the Veteran is not service-connected for mononucleosis. Therefore, there is no “new claim” separate and distinct from that which was previously denied and, moreover, a new theory of entitlement cannot constitute new and material evidence to reopen the previously denied claim. Velez v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 199 (2009); except see Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As the Veteran has not fulfilled the threshold burden of submitting new and material evidence to reopen the finally disallowed claim of service connection for aplastic anemia, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. See Annoni v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 463, 467 (1993). THOMAS H. O'SHAY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Hite, Associate Counsel