Citation Nr: 20006854 Decision Date: 01/29/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 17-07 041 DATE: January 29, 2020 ORDER New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim for service connection for personality disorder, therefore the claim is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran was notified in an April 1998 decision of his appellate rights as it related to his denial of service connection for personality disorder. The Veteran did not respond to the decision and new and material evidence was not received within one year of the notification. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for reopening or reconsideration of a claim of entitlement to service connection for personality disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1997 until November 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2019. A transcript of the testimony is of record. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim for service connection for personality disorder, therefore the claim is denied. A finally adjudicated claim may be reopened if the claimant submits new and material evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. New evidence means 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 provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a) create a low threshold, with the phrase “raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim” enabling rather than precluding reopening and not constituting a third requirement that must be met before the claim is reopened. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been submitted, the credibility of the evidence is presumed unless the evidence is inherently false or untrue or, if the evidence is in the form of a statement or other assertion, it is beyond the competence of the person making the assertion. Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216, 220 (1994); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). The Veteran’s initial claim for service connection for personality disorder was denied in April 1998. The RO noted that the denial was because a personality disorder, for VA purposes was considered to be a congenital or developmental defect which was unrelated to military service. The Veteran was notified of the decision in April 1998. The Veteran did not initiate an appeal or submit new and material evidence within one year of the rating decision and it became final. In July 2014 the Veteran resubmitted a claim for his personality disorder. In a November 2014 rating decision, the RO denied reopening the Veteran’s service connection claim for personality disorder. The RO found that the evidence submitted in support of his claim did not constitute new and material evidence. There was no new evidence submitted by the Veteran since the final April 1998 rating decision leading up to the July 2014 rating decision. As new and material evidence has not been presented to reopen the Veteran’s previously denied claim of service connection for personality disorder, the petition to reopen is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia is remanded. The Veteran currently has not presented evidence showing service connection for schizophrenia. A VA examination was scheduled for the Veteran in December 2016, however, the Veteran failed to make the examination appointment. See C&P Exam December 2016. A VA examination is required when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). See also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4)(i). The threshold for finding a link between current disability and service is low. Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. A memorandum from Southgate Clinic dated March 25, 2019 indicates that the Veteran was receiving treatment for schizophrenia from a psychiatrist Dr. Gary Graham. See Medical Treatment Record April 2019. Currently, there is no evidence in the record from Dr. Graham. As there are no examinations of record that have been conducted which diagnose the Veteran with schizophrenia, one is needed to determine if the Veteran does in fact suffers from schizophrenia and if this condition is related to his service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA and private medical records, specifically records from Southgate Clinic and Dr. Gary Graham. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA psychiatric examination with a psychiatrist or psychologist to determine the etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. All indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary must be accomplished and all findings reported in detail. The claims file, to include a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examination report must reflect that such a review was performed. Based on clinical evaluation of the Veteran and review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to provide responses to the following: (a) Does the Veteran suffer from any psychiatric disorder specifically schizophrenia? If the Veteran does suffer from a psychiatric disorder, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that that disorder either began during or was otherwise caused by the Veteran’s active service? A complete rationale for any opinion offered is required. 3. After the development described above, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If any determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. Cynthia M. Bruce Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Timothy Hatfield, 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.