Citation Nr: A20009012 Decision Date: 05/20/20 Archive Date: 05/20/20 DOCKET NO. 191105-42086 DATE: May 20, 2020 ORDER Readjudication of the claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. Readjudication of the claim of service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a rating decision dated on September 18, 2014, and issued to the Veteran and his service representative on September 19, 2014, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied, in pertinent part, the Veteran’s claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus; although the Veteran timely appealed this decision, he did not perfect a timely appeal and it became final. 2. New and relevant evidence was not received after the September 2014 rating decision on the issues of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The September 2014 rating decision, which denied claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103 (2019). 2. The criteria for readjudication of the claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. Veteran’s Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act (AMA), Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 5108, 131 Stat. 1105 (2017). 3. The criteria for readjudication of the claim of service connection for tinnitus have not been met. Veteran’s Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act (AMA), Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 5108, 131 Stat. 1105 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from July 1974 to November 1994. Historically, the Board notes that the AOJ denied, in pertinent part, the Veteran’s claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus in a September 2014 rating decision. Although the Veteran timely disagreed with this decision, he did not perfect a timely appeal and it became final. The Board notes that the rating decision on appeal was issued in February 2019. In November 2019, the Veteran elected the modernized review system. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(d). The new and material evidence issues regarding bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus have been recharacterized to reflect the applicable evidentiary standard. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2501(a)(1), 19.2. The Board finds that readjudication of the claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus is not warranted. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred each of these disabilities during active service, including as due to in-service acoustic trauma, and experienced continuous post-service disability. He also contends that new and relevant evidence has been received sufficient to readjudicate both of these previously finally denied claims. Under the AMA, VA will readjudicate a claim if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured. AMA, Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 5108, 131 Stat. 1105, 1109. “Relevant evidence” is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue. AMA, Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 101(35), Stat. 1105, 1105. The questions in this case are whether the Veteran submitted evidence after the prior final denial of his claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus in September 2014 in the legacy system and, if so, whether that evidence is new and relevant to his claims. The Board is bound by any favorable findings made by the AOJ under the AMA. The AOJ made no favorable findings in the September 2019 rating decision. The Board finds that the Veteran did not submit any new or relevant evidence after the prior final rating decision in September 2014 in the legacy system with respect to his service connection claims for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus. As the AOJ noted in the September 2019 rating decision, there still is no evidence that the Veteran experienced any in-service acoustic trauma which led to either of these claimed disabilities. The AOJ also noted that there still is no medical nexus opinion linking either of these claimed disabilities to active service. The Board agrees. In summary, the Board finds that readjudication of the claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus is not warranted. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.