Citation Nr: 21066198 Decision Date: 10/29/21 Archive Date: 10/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-66 306 DATE: October 29, 2021 ORDER The appeal of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is dismissed. New and material evidence having not been received, the application to reopen the claim for service connection for hypertension is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from October 1989 to September 1993. 2. Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with major depressive disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorder was granted in a September 2019 rating decision; as such, there is no justiciable issue on appeal with respect to a psychiatric disorder. 3. Service connection for hypertension was denied in June 2011; the Veteran did not appeal, and that decision became final. The evidence received since the last final denial does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 7105(d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 4.14, 4.126, 4.130 (2021). 2. The June 2011 rating decision denying service connection for hypertension is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012). 3. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of service connection for hypertension. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107, 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in July 2021. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the record. Acquired Psychiatric Disorder The Veteran's claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and MDD were denied by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in June 2013 and September 2015 decisions. He appealed the September 2015 rating decision to the Board. As this appeal was pending, in July 2019, he filed another claim for PTSD. In September 2019, he was granted service connection for PTSD with MDD and alcohol use disorder. He later filed a disagreement with the rating through the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). The Board no longer has jurisdiction over this appeal in the legacy system as this represents a full grant of the benefits sought on appeal. In July 2021, he testified before the Board that he had PTSD as a result of an airplane crash he witnessed during service. He did not mention, and the record does not show, any other mental health diagnoses aside from PTSD, MDD and alcohol use disorder. Service connection for PTSD and MDD has already been established and compensated (in the September 2019 rating decision granting service connection for these disabilities). As service connection has been granted, which constitutes a full grant of the benefits sought on appeal, there is no justiciable issue before the Board and the appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Service Connection for Hypertension Prior unappealed rating decisions may not be reopened absent the submission of new and material evidence warranting revision of the previous decision. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. "New" evidence means evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers." "Material" evidence means "evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, related to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim." 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In order to be considered "new and material," the evidence must not be cumulative or redundant, and "must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim," which has been found to be enabling, not preclusive. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). When determining whether the claim should be reopened, the credibility of the newly submitted evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1991). Historically, a claim for hypertension was denied in June 2011 due to the lack of finding of an in-service incurrence or a medical nexus. The Veteran did not appeal or submit new and material evidence within the one-year appeal period. Accordingly, the June 2011 rating decision became final. Evidence of record at the time of the June 2011 rating decision consisted of the Veteran's statements, the service treatment records (STRs), and post-treatment records. Evidence received since the June 2011 rating decision includes additional lay statements, including testimony at the July 2021 Board hearing, and additional treatment records continuing to show sporadic treatment for hypertension. At the July 2021 hearing the Veteran testified that he developed hypertension, at the earliest, around 2006, approximately 13 years following separation from service. He also testified that he went to sick call during service and was asked why he had an elevated blood pressure; however, his blood pressure was taken during service and recorded in STRs several times and there is no finding of chronic high blood pressure or a diagnosis of hypertension in service. Additionally, by his own admission, the Veteran did not develop hypertension under at the earliest, 2006, which was more than a decade after discharge. Further he testified that hypertension was a hereditary disorder. Specifically, he noted that his mother and his father both had hypertension. In this regard, he did not provide any new testimony which would suggest that he had or developed hypertension during service or that it was otherwise related to service. While not dispositive, this evidence weighs against the Veteran's statements that his disorder began in, or was otherwise related to, service. Thus, without any credible evidence of chronic hypertension in service and no evidence supporting a nexus between hypertension and service, the Veteran's statements are assigned less probative value. Accordingly, while some of this evidence is new, including the Veteran's statements and treatment for hypertension, it is not material in that it does not raise a reasonable probability of substantiating the claim. As such, the application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Yacoub, 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.