Citation Nr: 21070744 Decision Date: 11/25/21 Archive Date: 11/25/21 DOCKET NO. 16-50 346 DATE: November 25, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having not been received, the application to reopen the claim of service connection for shrapnel wounds is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from July 1968 to July 1970 and September 1976 to September 1994, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. 2. In an unappealed January 1997 rating decision, the Regional Office (RO) denied service connection for shrapnel wounds; evidence submitted since the January 1997 rating decision did not establish a diagnosis of shrapnel wound residuals or a nexus between any current disorder and service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The January 1997 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012). 2. The evidence received since the January 1997 rating decision is new but not material and the claim for service connection for shrapnel wounds is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 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 "new and material" evidence, 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. See 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). In an unappealed January 1997 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for shrapnel wounds. Service connection was denied due to a lack of in-service medical evidence related to shrapnel wounds. Evidence of record at the time of the prior final decision included lay statements from the Veteran and service treatment records (STRs) from the second period of service. Since that time, additional evidence has been submitted, including clinical treatment records, VA examination reports, and lay statements. Specifically, a May 2014 VA examination report noted no scars or retained shrapnel of the face or lower legs as reported by the Veteran. Further, a December 2019 VA examiner found no evidence of currently disabling shrapnel wounds, to include scars. He also found that the Veteran's claim of pain in the lower extremities was most likely unrelated to any shrapnel injury. In addition, the clinical treatment records do not reflect a current diagnosis of residuals of a shrapnel wound, to include scars. Further, there is no medical evidence which establishes a nexus between any current residuals of a shrapnel wound and service. Accordingly, while new evidence has been submitted, it is not material because it does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim by showing a current diagnosis which is related to service. As such, while new records have been submitted, they do not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim, and the application to reopen the claim is denied. The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements that he has submitted evidence to reopen the claim and that a December 2019 VA examination was inadequate. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses; however, he is not competent to offer a medical opinion sufficient to reopen a claim. The Board has carefully reviewed the May 2014 and December 2019 examinations as well as the clinical records. However, a review of the medical evidence does not establish a nexus between service and the Veteran's complaints as the examiner found no scars that were attributable to shrapnel injuries to the shins or right cheek. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to the Veteran's statements and finds that the examiner was adequate for adjudicative purposes. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim to reopen and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal 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 T. Kokolas, 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.