Citation Nr: 21005680 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 19-06 431 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for progressive axonal peripheral neuropathy. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. New and material evidence has not been received since the last final denial with regard to entitlement to service connection for progressive axonal peripheral neuropathy. 2. In an unappealed May 2015 decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for progressive axonal peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSION OF LAW Evidence received since the last final denial on the issue of service connection for progressive axonal peripheral neuropathy is not new and material; the claim is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Introduction The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam Era, from August 1966 to June 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 Rating Decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Reopening Claims Generally, a claim which has been denied in an unappealed RO decision may not thereafter be reopened and allowed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 501, 5103A(f), 5108, 7104(b), 7105(c). The exception is when new and material evidence is presented or secured, which Congress intended to be a low threshold. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156; see Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 121 (2010). Existing evidence not previously before agency decision makers is “new evidence.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). “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.” Id. In determining whether evidence is new and material, the evidence must be presumed credible. Shade, 24 Vet. App. at 122. New evidence may be sufficient to reopen a claim if it contributes to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of a Veteran’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). New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last final denial of the claim sought to be reopened. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). New and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for progressive axonal peripheral neuropathy. The Veteran previously submitted claims for the same issue involved herein, with the most recent denial on the merits being a May 2015 rating decision. As the Veteran did not appeal or submit new and material evidence within the one-year appeal period the May 2015 rating decision became final. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a), (b), (c). The Veteran has requested that his claim be reopened, and the December 2017 Rating Decision determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted sufficient to warrant reopening. However, the Board must determine on its own accord whether new and material evidence is of record to reopen the claim before it may consider it on the merits. See Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In conjunction with the Veteran’s claim to reopen, he submitted the first page of a medical article, “Peripheral Neuropathy Due to Vitamin Deficiency, Toxins, and Medications” and private medical treatment records, and additional VA treatment records were associated with the claims file. The Board finds, despite the low threshold espoused in Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010), that new and material evidence has not been received. It is not material evidence as it is cumulative and redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last final decision. Moreover, the Board finds that even under the low threshold pursuant to Shade, medical records showing continuity of the Veteran’s progressive axonal peripheral neuropathy do not meet the standard of an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim, particularly, causation. Shade, 24 Vet. App. at 121. The new evidence does not contribute to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the Veteran’s disability. Hodge, 155 F.3d at 1363. In addition, the Veteran did not submit any other evidence linking his current progressive axonal peripheral neuropathy condition to any in-service injury or disease. Accordingly, the Board finds that, as material evidence has not been received since the prior final decision, the Veteran’s claim to reopen the claim for service connection for progressive axonal peripheral neuropathy must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Worsham, Attorney Advisor 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.