Citation Nr: A19001593 Decision Date: 09/26/19 Archive Date: 09/26/19 DOCKET NO. 190826-24404 DATE: September 26, 2019 ORDER Readjudication the claim of service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. Readjudication the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. New and relevant evidence was not received after the January 2014 denial to warrant the readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 2. New and relevant evidence was not received after the January 2014 to warrant the readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). 2. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Board notes that the rating decision on appeal was issued in October 2018. In August 2019, the Veteran elected the modernized review system. The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Air Force from July 1958 to December 1961. The Veteran selected the Direct Review Lane when he opted in to the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) review system when he timely appealed the October 2018 rating decision to the Board in August 2019 and requested direct review of the evidence considered by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The AOJ considered the merits of the service connection claims in a January 2014 rating decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Considering the procedural history of this appeal, the question before it is whether new and relevant evidence was received following this decision. Considering the timing of evidence submission following the election of AMA, evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence cannot be considered as the record was closed. Specifically, the representative submitted a brief in September 2019, where he referred to a treatise that discusses childhood acoustic trauma and delay of hearing deficits until many years later on normal audiological examinations. The Board may not consider this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. NEW AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE Whether new and relevant evidence was presented to warrant readjudicating the January 2014 claims of service connection for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that he sustained tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss due to active service. VA will readjudicate a claim if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured. “Relevant evidence” is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). The question in this case is whether the Veteran submitted evidence after the prior final denial of his claims for service connection for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss in the legacy system, and if so, whether that evidence is new and relevant to his claims. The evidence that can be considered is that of record at the time of the AMA decision on appeal. The Board finds that the Veteran did not submit any new evidence after the final January 2014 rating decision in the legacy system that is relevant to these claims. In July 2019, the Veteran only submitted contentions that his service treatment records (STRs) indicate worsening in service and resubmitted his STRs, which were already of record at the time of the initial adjudication. Therefore, the evidence he submitted was not new. The Veteran’s assertions and the STRs were of record at the time of the January 2014 rating decision that is final.   Therefore, readjudication of the claims for service connection for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Pendleton, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.