Citation Nr: 21067799 Decision Date: 11/05/21 Archive Date: 11/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-49 464 DATE: November 5, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a chest disorder, and the claim is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a decision dated February 2013, the Regional Office (RO) denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement service connection a chest disorder. The Veteran was notified of the decision and did not perfect an appeal. 2. Evidence added to the record since the February 2013 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for a chest disorder is cumulative or redundant, does not cure a prior evidentiary defect, and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran's claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The February 2013 rating decision denying service connection for a chest disorder is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103. 2. New and material evidence has not been presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a chest disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from March 2002 to July 2002, and from May 2003 to November 2003. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from an appeal of a June 2015 Rating Decision from the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), the Regional Office in Togus, Maine. The Board previously remanded this case for additional development in March 2019. The matter has now returned to the Board for appellate review. New and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a chest disorder Generally, a claim which has been denied in an unappealed RO decision or an unappealed Board decision may not thereafter be reopened and allowed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104 (b), 7105(c). An exception to this rule is 38 U.S.C. § 5108, which provides that if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. New evidence is evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means 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 previously of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held, however, that evidence that is merely cumulative of other evidence in the record cannot be new and material even if that evidence had not been previously presented to the Board. Anglin v. West, 203 F.3d 1343 (2000). In deciding whether new and material evidence has been received, the Board looks to the evidence received since the last final denial of the claim on any basis. Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 285 (1996). The threshold for determining whether new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim is "low." See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). In determining whether evidence is new and material, the credibility of the evidence is generally presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 512-513 (1992). This appeal arises out of the Veteran's contention that his claimed chest disorder is related to his military service. The February 2013 rating decision, which considered the Veteran's service treatment records, denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a chest disability, finding that the evidence did not show a current disability. The Veteran was notified, did not appeal the decision, and new and material evidence was not received within a year of that decision. Thus, the February 2013 rating decision is final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.104. Subsequently, duplicate copies of service treatment records considered by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in the February 2013 rating decision were received. Additionally, VA treatment records dated from February 2007 to June 2019 were added to the Veteran's electronic claims filee, as directed by the Board's previous remand. However, review of these records does not show a clinically confirmed diagnosis of a chest disorder. Rather, the VA treatment records consistently show that the Veteran denied chest pain and physical examinations did not identify any disorders. Accordingly, the Board has determined that while some of this evidence is new, it is not material, and therefore not sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a chest disorder. In reaching this decision the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt, however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. J. M. Kirby Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Scanlan, 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.