Citation Nr: 20030124 Decision Date: 04/29/20 Archive Date: 04/29/20 DOCKET NO. 18-53 312A DATE: April 29, 2020 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the petition to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic paranoid schizophrenia is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chronic paranoid schizophrenia is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An unappealed May 2004 rating decision denied a peition to reopen the Veteran’s claim of service connection for chronic paranoid schizophrenia. 2. Additional evidence has been received since the May 2004 rating decision that relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the previously denied claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The May 2004 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. 2. New and material evidence having been received, the criteria for reopening the claim for service connection for chronic paranoid schizophrenia have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1977 to June 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana. In his December 2018 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. Prior to the scheduling of the hearing, he withdrew his request for a hearing. See August 2019 Statement in Support of Claim. Therefore, the hearing request is considered withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). New and Material Evidence Initially, the Board notes that whenever a claim to reopen is filed, regardless of how it was characterized by the AOJ, the Board must make a de novo determination as to whether new and material evidence has been received. Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In general, VA rating decisions that are not timely appealed are final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. A finally disallowed claim may be reopened when new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. New evidence is defined as 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). For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been submitted, the credibility of the evidence, although not its weight, is presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). If the evidence is new, but not material, the inquiry ends; and the claim cannot be reopened. Smith v. West, 12 Vet. App. 312 (1999). If it is determined that new and material evidence has been submitted, the claim must be reopened. When determining whether the received evidence meets the definition of new and material evidence, VA must consider whether the new evidence could, if the claim were reopened, reasonably result in substantiation of the claim. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 118 (2010). VA must evaluate submissions received during the year following notice of a rating decision to determine whether they contain new and material evidence, even if the new submission may support a new claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b); Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 251-52 (2010). A May 2004 rating decision, in pertinent part, confirmed an earlier denial of the Veteran’s claim of service connection for chronic paranoid schizophrenia. The Veteran was notified of this decision and of his appellate rights by letter dated May 20, 2004. Although he initiated an appeal, he did not perfect his appeal. Therefore, the May 2004 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. The basis for the denial was the absence of in-service indications of schizophrenia, the lack of treatment in the first post-service year, and the fact that treatment was not first shown until 1989, about 9 years after separation from active service. The evidence of record received subsequent to the May 2004 rating decision consists of post-service treatment records, the Veteran’s lay statements, and a statement submitted by the Veteran’s mother. This evidence is both new and material to the extent that they suggest the Veteran’s chronic paranoid schizophrenia is related to his active duty service. The additional evidence is therefore so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim. As such, the Board finds that the evidence submitted since the last final denial of the claim meets the new and material evidence standard, and thus the claim is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran asserts that his chronic paranoid schizophrenia had its initial onset during his active duty service. Specifically, he states that he was unable to cope with the rigorous demands of military service. See October 2002 Correspondence. Additionally, the Veteran submitted a letter from his mother, which stated that he was nervous and paranoid following his discharge from active duty service. See September 2004 C.S. Statement. The Board notes that the Veteran and his mother are competent to report on his observable psychiatric issues. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (finding that a veteran is competent to report on factual matters of which he has firsthand knowledge). Given the statements of the Veteran and his mother, the Board finds that a remand is required to obtain an opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s chronic paranoid schizophrenia. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). The Board notes that private treatment records are not associated with the claims file. In this regard, medical records indicate the Veteran has sought treatment for his paranoid schizophrenia since the early 1980’s. See June 1990 Psychiatric Evaluation. On remand, efforts to obtain these records should be made, as set forth below. Finally, as this matter is being remanded the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make arrangements to obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records, dated from October 2017, forward. 2. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify any outstanding records of pertinent medical treatment from VA or private health care providers. Follow the procedures for obtaining the records, as set forth by 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), and obtain VA Form 21-4142 releases if necessary. If any outstanding records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 3. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination. The entire claims file, to include a copy of this REMAND, must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner should confirm in the examination report that he or she has reviewed the folder in conjunction with the examination. The examiner should elicit a full history from the Veteran. Any medically indicated tests should be conducted. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s chronic paranoid schizophrenia or any other diagnosed acquired psychiatric disability had its clinical onset during active service, or within the first post-service year. If it, is it at least as likely as not related to any incident of service, to include his inability to cope with the demands of military service? In providing this opinion, the examiner should consider and address the statements of the Veteran and his mother on the Veteran’s psychiatric symptomatology following his active duty service. (Continued on the next page)   A supporting rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide any opinion as requested, the examiner should fully explain the reason why such opinion could not be rendered. ERIC S. LEBOFF Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. M. Stedman, 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.