Citation Nr: A25035292 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 230215-323796 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER New and relevant evidence has not been received to warrant readjudication of the claim for service connection for tinnitus, therefore the claim is denied. FINDING OF FACT No new evidence was received after the December 2017 denial of the claim that is relevant to the claim for service connection for tinnitus. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.2500, 3.2501. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1977 to February 1980. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2022 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2021, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a supplemental claim rating decision, which found that new and relevant evidence had not been received since the October 2017 rating decision that last denied the claim. In March 2022, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of the July 2021 supplemental claim rating decision. In April 2022, the AOJ issued the HLR decision on appeal, which also found that new and relevant evidence had not been received. In the February 2023 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2021 AOJ supplemental claim rating decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to HLR, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. Whether new and relevant evidence has been received to warrant readjudication of the claim for service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran contends that his tinnitus was incurred in, aggravated by, or is otherwise attributable to his service. At an October 2017 VA Hearing Loss and Tinnitus examination, the Veteran reported that he first noticed he had tinnitus 10 years prior. In a December 2017 rating decision, the AOJ had previously denied service connection for tinnitus because the medical evidence did not support a change in the previous denial of the claim in October 2017. VA will readjudicate a claim if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). "New evidence" is defined as evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators, and "relevant evidence" is defined as information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim, to include evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. At the time of the most recent December 2017 rating decision, the evidence of record consisted of the Veteran's medical treatment records from the VA Medical Center (VAMC) Dayton for the period between September 16, 1985 to October 27, 1985 and a October 2017 VA Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire. Since the December 2017 rating decision, new VA treatment records from the VAMC Dayton for the period February 19, 2016 to June 12, 2021, have been associated with the record. However, the VA treatment records are not relevant to the claim, as they do not tend to prove or disprove that the Veteran's tinnitus is due to his service. In fact, the VA treatment records do not contain any evidence pertaining to the Veteran's tinnitus. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been received, therefore the claim may not be readjudicated, and must be denied. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501. John R. Doolittle, II Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Susan E. Leary 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.