Citation Nr: 21030298 Decision Date: 05/18/21 Archive Date: 05/18/21 DOCKET NO. 15-05 130 DATE: May 18, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having not been received, the petition to reopen a claim of service connection for schizophrenia is denied. New and material evidence having not been received, the petition to reopen a claim of service connection for bipolar disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a July 2008 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied service connection for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) was filed and a February 2009 Statement of the Case (SOC) confirmed the denial; the appellant did not file a timely Form 9 substantive appeal and no new and material evidence was received within the appeal period. 2. Evidence received since the July 2008 decision is either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the July 2008 denial and, by itself or in conjunction with the evidence previously assembled, does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of service connection for schizophrenia. 3. Evidence received since the July 2008 decision is either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the July 2008 denial and, by itself or in conjunction with the evidence previously assembled, does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of service connection for bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The July 2008 rating decision denying service connection for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.1103. 2. Evidence received since the July 2008 decision is not new and material; accordingly, the claim of service connection for schizophrenia is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R.§ 3.156(a). 3. Evidence received since the July 2008 decision is not new and material; accordingly, the claim of service connection for bipolar disorder is not reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant had active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from August 1994 to March 1995. These matters originally came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from August 2010 and July 2011 rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A July 2019 Board decision denied applications to reopen claims for service connection claims for schizophrenia, a bipolar disorder, a lumbar spine disorder, In a September 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacated the Board's denials to reopen the claims of service connection for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Claims to Reopen Where a claim has been finally adjudicated, a claimant must present new and material evidence to reopen the previously denied claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). New evidence is evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Material evidence is evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. Id. New and material evidence cannot be either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id. New and material evidence received prior to the expiration of the appeal period following a decision, will be considered as having been filled in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). The definitions of the terms new and material for the purposes of this provision are the same as those discussed above. Voracek v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If evidence received during the appellate period following a decision is new and material, the claim will remain pending until VA issues another decision re-adjudicating the claim and addressing the new and material evidence. Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362, 1367 68 (Fed. Cir. 2011). New and material evidence is not required to reopen a claim when, at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)." Relevant means service records that speak to a matter in issue or in dispute. Kisor v. Wilkie, 969 F.3d 1333, 1341 43 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In other words, to be relevant the new service department records must pertain to the basis of the prior final denial. Id. For the purposes of reopening a claim, newly submitted evidence is generally presumed to be credible. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). New and material evidence is not required as to each previously unproven element of a claim in order to reopen. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 120 (2010). There is a low threshold for determining whether evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim. Id. at 117-18. 1. New and material evidence having not been received, the petition to reopen a claim of service connection for schizophrenia is denied. 2. New and material evidence having not been received, the petition to reopen a claim of service connection for bipolar disorder is denied. After reviewing the record, the Board finds that evidence received since the July 2008 decision denying service connection for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the July 2008 decision and, by itself or in conjunction with the evidence previously assembled, does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims of service connection for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. A June 2007 rating decision denied the claims of service connection for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder based on the lack of nexus between a current disorder and the appellant's period of active service. New evidence was received within the appeal period and a July 2008 rating decision considered the new evidence and confirmed and continued the denials of service connection for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The appellant filed a timely NOD and a February 2009 SOC confirmed the denials of service connection. The appellant did not file a timely Form 9 substantive appeal and no new and material evidence was received within the appeal period; therefore, the July 2008 rating decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.1103. Evidence added to the claims file since the final July 2008 rating decision includes additional service treatment records, private treatment records, and statements from the appellant. The service treatment records associated with the file subsequent to the July 2008 decision are new but are not relevant as they do not demonstrate a diagnosis or treatment for a psychological disorder during service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). Likewise, the newly added private treatment records show ongoing treatment for psychiatric disorders, but fail but, likewise, are not relevant as they do not demonstrate a diagnosis or treatment for a psychological disorder during service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). The appellant's new statements are cumulative or redundant of statements made prior to the July 2008 rating decision. The Board recognizes that in a January 2015 substantive appeal the appellant has asserted some medical training during service and that she therefore was competent to provide an etiology opinion in the matters. Such statements may constitute competent medical evidence where the individual has specialized knowledge regarding the area of medicine or participation in treatment. See Black v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 279, 284 (1997) (finding that a nurse's statement may constitute competent medical evidence where the nurse has specialized knowledge regarding the area of medicine or participated in treatment). While the appellant's states that she was assigned to a medical battalion, her DD Form 214 lists her military occupational specialty as hospital food service specialist and her military coursework as a nine week food service specialist course and a seven week hospital food service specialist course. The Veteran indicated in her Social Security Administration application that she had a history of working in fast food restaurants, telemarketing, in a child care program and in a hospital medical records department. A September 2011 private treatment note indicates that the appellant had attended school through the age of 16 and quit in the 10th grade, that she later earned a GED in service and that she attended a technical college after service studying accounting and computers. There is no indication that the appellant has undergone any specialized knowledge or training in the areas of psychology or psychological disease. In addition, it has not shown that the appellant received any specialized medical training in diagnosis and opining as to the etiology of an acquired psychiatric disorder, such that she is competent to render a probative (i.e., persuasive) opinion on the medical matter upon which these claims turn. Hence, the Board finds that the appellant is not competent to provide a medical opinion to support this claim on the basis of her assertions alone. (Continued on the next page) Therefore, the Board may not reopen the service connection claims for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant's claims, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. M. Donahue Boushehri, 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.