Citation Nr: 21042057 Decision Date: 07/11/21 Archive Date: 07/11/21 DOCKET NO. 17-47 933 DATE: July 11, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having not been received, the application to reopen the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus (DM) is denied. REMANDED A compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from February 1969 to October 1971, to include service in Vietnam from October 1970 to October 1971. 2. Service connection for DM was denied in 2014; the Veteran did not appeal and the decision became final. The evidence submitted since the last final denial in 2014 does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The 2014 rating decision, which denied service connection for DM, is final. 38 C.F.R. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2020). 2. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of service connection for DM. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107, 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2021. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the claims file. Prior unappealed rating decisions may not be reopened absent the submission of new and material evidence warranting revision of the previous decision.38U.S.C. §5108; 38C.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 considered "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 February 2014, the Regional Office (RO) denied a claim of service connection for DM due to the absence of a nexus between the current disorder and an in-service incurrence. The evidence at the time included lay statements and clinical records. The Veteran did not appeal, and that decision became final. The evidence received since the prior final denial consists of clinical records, lay statements, personnel records, and a hearing transcript. Specifically, personnel records show that the Veteran served in Vietnam from October 1970 to October 1971. However, clinical evidence is in conflict as to whether the Veteran has DM. Specifically, the record reflects that an August 2016 note written on a prescription pad that listed a diagnosis of DM. At the hearing, he testified that the note had been written by his old physician, Dr. E, who he no longer saw. However, the rest of the clinical evidence of record showed that he does not have a current diagnosis of DM. Specifically, clinical records show that the Veteran's A1C levels ranged from 5.8 to 6, which is indicative of pre-DM. Further, in September 2013 and January 2017 VA examinations, the examiners wrote that the Veteran did not have DM. Instead, in the January 2017 VA examination, the examiner wrote that the Veteran had been diagnosed with impaired fasting glucose in 2016. Further, while a May 2021 clinical record showed that the Veteran had high glucose levels, this is only a laboratory finding and does not indicate that he has DM. As to the Veteran's lay statements, these statements essentially duplicated his contentions all along. As the RO had previously considered the nature of his contentions, this evidence is not "new" as required under the applicable regulatory and statutory provisions. In sum, the evidence does not show that hypertension began in service. Therefore, the application to reopen the claim for service connection 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). REASONS FOR REMAND In April 2021, the Veteran testified before the Board that his hearing loss had worsened since his last VA examination in 2019. Therefore, an updated examination is needed to decide the claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current nature and severity of his hearing loss. The file and a copy of this remand should be made available to the examiner. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ragofsky, 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.