Citation Nr: 21073845 Decision Date: 12/10/21 Archive Date: 12/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-22 120A DATE: December 10, 2021 ORDER With no new and material evidence presented, the claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include schizophrenia and depression remains denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence added to the record since the original denial of the Veteran's claim is either redundant or cumulative of the evidence at the time of the previous denial, or it does not speak to the reason for the previous denial. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to reopen the previously denied claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include schizophrenia and depression have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1990 to December 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in October 2016 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2021. A transcript of the hearing is of record. 1. With no new and material evidence presented, the claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include schizophrenia and depression remains denied. The Veteran seeks to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include schizophrenia and depression. VA may reopen a claim for service connection which has been previously and finally disallowed when new and material evidence has been presented or secured since the last final disallowance of the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 285 (1996). In this regard, "new evidence" means existing evidence not previously submitted to VA. "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. Taken in combination, 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). New evidence may be sufficient to reopen a claim if it can contribute to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of a claimant's injury or disability, even where it would not be enough to convince the Board to grant a claim. Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 512-13 (1992). Thus, the Board must first determine whether new and material evidence has been submitted under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a) to have a claim reopened under 38 U.S.C. § 5108. Elkins v. West, 12 Vet. App. 209 (1999). Then the Board may proceed to evaluate the merits of the claim after ensuring that VA's duty to assist has been fulfilled. See Vargas-Gonzalez v. West, 12 Vet. App. 321, 328 (1999). The law should be interpreted to enable reopening of a claim, rather than to preclude it. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). To determine whether new and material evidence has been submitted, it is necessary to consider all evidence added to the record since the last time the claim was denied on any basis in conjunction with the evidence already of record. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The Veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder was denied in a June 2007 Board decision. In the decision, the Board found that while the Veteran had a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder, to include schizophrenia and depression, there was no connection to service. This included the Veteran's claims of being exposed to a chemical agent (specifically referred to as "Purple K") during his active duty service. More specifically, the Board found that there was no evidence verifying the occurrence of exposure to a chemical agent, and the record failed to establish that any of the currently diagnosed disabilities were related to any incident of service. Further, the Board found that there was no continuity of symptoms after his separation from service (finding that the Veteran did not seek treatment for depression until 6 years post-service). Moreover, the Board found that there was no medical opinion suggesting that the Veteran's psychiatric disabilities began in, or are related to, service. Subsequently, the Veteran sought to reopen his claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Rating decisions of August 2009 and January 2010 found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the Veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder other than PTSD; those same decisions denied service connection for PTSD specifically. The Veteran then perfected an appeal as to the specific denial of service connection for PTSD. The Board denied this claim in July 2016, finding that the Veteran was not diagnosed as suffering from PTSD. Since that time, additional evidence has been submitted or obtained and associated with the Veteran's claims file. Some of the medical records note ongoing treatment for the Veteran's mental health. However, none of the new evidence addresses the primary reason for the previous final denial, namely any evidence of an in-service incurrence, or whether there is a nexus to service. The Veteran's contentions regarding his in-service exposure, made at his hearing and throughout the record since the Board's decision, are similarly duplicative of those of record at the time of the previous Board decision. Notably, the Veteran's contentions regarding chemical agent exposure were part of the record at the time of the earlier Board and RO denials of the Veteran's claim, and his statements regarding such exposure are cumulative and redundant of the evidence of record. Quite simply, though new evidence has been submitted or obtained since the previous final denials, this evidence is either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of previous Board and RO denials, or it does not speak to the reasons for the previous final denials. (Continued on next page) In reaching such decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder. As such, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal, and his claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. K. Hall, 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.