BVA9507838 DOCKET NO. 93-13 643 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for Alzheimer's disease. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Bernard T. DoMinh, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February 1951 to January 1953 and from October 1961 to August 1962. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 1993 rating decision by the Montgomery, Alabama, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied the veteran's application to reopen his previously denied claim for service connection for Alzheimer's disease. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that his Alzheimer's disease had its onset during his periods of training in the Army Reserve and should be service-connected. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the evidence submitted by the veteran is not new and material, and is insufficient to reopen his claim for service connection for a Alzheimer's disease. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a July 1988 RO decision, service connection for Alzheimer's disease was denied; the veteran was then notified but did not timely appeal; and in 1993 he applied to reopen his claim. 2. Evidence submitted subsequent to the July 1988 RO decision is cumulative and redundant, or when viewed in the context of all the evidence it raises no reasonable possibility of a change in the outcome of the 1988 RO decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The additional evidence received subsequent to the July 1988 RO decision is not new and material, the claim for service connection for Alzheimer's disease is not reopened, and the July 1988 RO decision is final. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. Factual Background The veteran served on active duty in the Army from February 1951 to January 1953, and from October 1961 to August 1962. His service medical records contain no evidence of Alzheimer's disease. The veteran also had many years of service in the Army Reserve and National Guard, during which time he had the usual periods of active duty for training (typically, two weeks of annual training) and inactive duty training (weekend drills). Numerous private medical records indicate that, beginning in 1985, the veteran was evaluated for a recent memory impairment; the condition gradually worsened, and Alzheimer's disease was diagnosed in 1986; and the disease was treated thereafter. In 1986 the veteran ceased working for Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (where he had been employed for 30 years), and he was thereafter placed on disability retirement. In a December 1986 claim for VA compensation or pension, the veteran related that for 2½ to 3 years he had been having memory problems while working and when teaching in the reserve. A July 1987 RO decision granted non-service-connected pension, primarily based on Alzheimer's disease. In July 1988, the veteran claimed service connection for Alzheimer's disease, which he said began in September 1986. In a July 1988 decision, the RO denied service-connection for Alzheimer's disease. The veteran and his representative were sent notice of the decision in August 1988 and did not timely appeal it. In September 1990, the RO received a letter written to a Congressman by the veteran's wife, in which she reported that the veteran had many years of service with the Army National Guard and Reserve, and that he taught classes in the reserve, two weekends each month, for about 10 years. She said that in 1983 her husband developed Alzheimer's disease and was no longer able to teach classes in the reserve. She noted her husband was retired by the Army Reserve in 1989 (a March 1990 document from the Army Reserve, showing his retirement in September 1989, was submitted). She stated that he had attempted to obtain a medical discharge from the reserve due to Alzheimer's disease, but was unsuccessful. In March 1993, the veteran's wife applied, on the veteran's behalf, to reopen his claim for service connection for Alzheimer's disease. As evidence to reopen the claim, she presented copies of statements dated in September 1986 and June 1987, from F. Lopez, M.D., and a September 1986 statement from David A. Davis, M.D. These statements were already of record when the RO previously denied service connection in July 1988. In March 1993, the RO denied the application to reopen the claim for service connection for Alzheimer's disease. In a May 1993 substantive appeal, signed by the veteran, he said that he had over 27 years of combined active duty, reserve and national guard service, and that his problem (Alzheimer's disease) started while he was teaching classes in the reserve. II. Analysis The veteran's claim for service connection for Alzheimer's disease was previously denied on the merits by the RO in a July 1988 decision; the veteran was then notified but did not timely appeal. Under such circumstances, the decision of the RO is final, with the exception that the veteran may later reopen his claim if new and material evidence is submitted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105. Therefore, it must first be determined whether or not new and material evidence has been submitted, since the 1988 RO decision, such that the claim may now be reopened. Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140 (1991). For evidence to be deemed new, it must not be cumulative or redundant; to be material, it must be relevant and probative to the issue at hand and, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, it must raise a reasonable possibility of a change in the prior adverse outcome. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156; Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171 (1991). In March 1993, the veteran, through his wife, in support of his application to reopen his claim, submitted statements from Dr. Lopez and Dr. Davis, dated in 1986 and 1987. These pieces of evidence are merely copies of statements which had been submitted previously and already considered by the RO in its 1988 decision. The duplicate statements are redundant evidence; they do not constitute new evidence. Other evidence received since the 1988 RO decision includes a notice of retirement from the Army Reserve in 1989, a few years after Alzheimer's disease was diagnosed. This is new but not material evidence, since it does not show that Alzheimer's disease was incurred in or aggravated by the remote periods of active duty, or by brief periods of active duty for training with the reserve and national guard. Cox v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 95 (1993). The 1993 statements by the veteran and his wife appear to allege that Alzheimer's disease started when the veteran was teaching classes in the reserve. Apparently the veteran at one time taught classes during weekend reserve drills (i.e., inactive duty training). However, service connection is only permitted for injuries, not disease, incurred in or aggravated by inactive duty training. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101(24), 106, 310, 331. Even assuming, however, that the veteran once taught classes during active duty for training, the record is devoid of any evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of Alzheimer's disease during these brief periods. The 1993 statements by the veteran and his wife, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, raise no reasonable possibility of a change in the 1988 RO decision; thus, the 1993 statements are not material evidence. The Board finds that new and material evidence has not been submitted since the 1988 RO decision which denied service connection for Alzheimer's disease. Thus, the claim may not be reopened, and the 1988 RO decision remains final. ORDER The veteran's application to reopen his claim for service connection for Alzheimer's disease is denied. L. W. TOBIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.