Citation Nr: 20003071 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 16-39 306 DATE: January 14, 2020 ORDER New and material evidence having been presented, the claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is reopened. To this limited extent only, the appeal of that issue is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s service connection claim for hypertension was denied in a November 1999 decision that was not appealed; no further evidence relevant to this service connection claim was submitted for a period of one year following the November 1999 decision. 2. Evidence relevant to the Veteran’s service connection claim for hypertension was submitted since the November 1999 decision and was not previously considered by agency decision makers; is neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence already of record; relates to unestablished facts; and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran’s claim for service connection for hypertension. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has been received since the November 1999 denial became final; the criteria for reopening the previously denied claim for service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1978 to July 1981 and from March 1982 to May 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously remanded by the Board in March 2018. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 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, 20.1103. VA must review all of the evidence submitted since the last final rating decision in order to determine whether the claim may be reopened. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 251 (1999). The threshold is low and does not require new and material evidence regarding each element of the claim that had not been proved in the prior final decision. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). For purposes of determining whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a finally adjudicated claim, the recently submitted evidence will be presumed credible. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). 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 Veteran filed his initial claim of service connection for hypertension in December 1997. In a November 1999 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for hypertension. Specifically, the RO found that there was no evidence treatment, in service, of hypertension, and no evidence that the Veteran’s hypertension was incurred in or aggravated by his service. The Veteran did not submit a notice of disagreement or any additional evidence relating to this service connection claim within one year of being notified of the November 1999 rating decision. Thus, the November 1999 rating decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). New and material evidence is therefore required to reopen the claim for service connection for hypertension. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Since the November 1999 rating decision, evidence that the Veteran had high blood pressure in service has been associated with the record. Therefore, the Board finds that new and material evidence which tends to substantiate the Veteran’s claim for service connection for hypertension has been received in this case, and this claim is reopened. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran has asserted that he experienced high blood pressure several times while in service, including at a processing station in South Carolina, during basic training at Fort Jackson, and while stationed at Fort Carson and Fort Campbell. Although attempts to locate the Veteran’s service treatment records reflecting these high blood pressure readings have been unsuccessful, the Veteran is competent to state that he was told he had high blood pressure readings in service. In addition, the Veteran’s VA treatment records reflect that he has a current diagnosis of hypertension. As such, a VA examination is necessary to obtain an opinion regarding the Veteran’s service connection claim for hypertension. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006) (VA is obliged to provide an examination where there is insufficient information to decide the claim and there is an indication the current disability may be associated with service). The Board notes that, although the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 1998, no nexus opinion was provided. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination, preferably with an examiner who has not previously examined him, to determine whether the Veteran’s hypertension is related to his military service. Following a review of the claims file and an examination of the Veteran, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hypertension began in or is otherwise caused by the Veteran’s active service. In doing so, the examiner must address the Veteran’s contentions that he was told by medical professionals that he experienced high blood pressure in service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, they must provide a reason for doing so. All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Elias, 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.