BVA9504661 DOCKET NO. 93-06 530 DATE JAN 19 1995 On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila, Philippines THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for basic eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation. INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a determination of the Manila, Philippines, Regional Office (RO). A 1957 letter from this same RO had informed the appellant that a claim for VA compensation based on claimed military service had been denied. There was no appeal from this action. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant argues that evidence submitted since the 1957 letter notifying him of the denial of his claim constitutes new and material evidence. He maintains that he served during World War II as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army (USAFFE); that he was a prisoner of war; and that he was awarded the Purple Heart by United States military authorities. 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(s). 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 appellant has not met the burden of submitting new and material evidence to reopen his claim for basic eligibility for VA compensation. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a July 12, 1957 letter, the RO informed the appellant that he did not have valid service as a member of the USAFFE or in a recognized guerrilla unit, based on adverse certification of service from the Department of the Army. 2. The appellant did not file a timely appeal to the July 12, 1957 denial letter. 3. The evidence received since the July 1957 letter from the RO does not present a reasonable possibility that review of all the evidence, both old and new, would change the outcome. CONCLUSION OF LAW Evidence received since the RO's final July 1957 decision letter, notifying the appellant of the denial of his claim for basic eligibility for VA compensation, is not new and material, and the appellant's claim is not reopened. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107, 5108, 7104 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. 3. 156(a) (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The July 12, 1957 letter notifying the appellant of the denial of his claim for eligibility for VA compensation is final, and cannot be modified unless there is submitted evidence which is new and material and which warrants a revision of the previous decision. 38 U.S.C.A. 5108, 7104. New and material evidence means evidence not previously submitted, which bears directly and substantially upon a specific matter under consideration, which is neither cumulative nor redundant, and which, by itself, or in connection with the evidence previously assembled, is so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim. 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a). Evidence previously of record included certification from the service department that the veteran had no USAFFE or recognized guerrilla service. The additional evidence submitted by the appellant in connection with the current claim includes a 1973 document from the General Headquarters, Armed Forces. of the Philippines; a statement from S. Sion and A. Salazar; a 1980 statement from the Philippines Veterans Affairs Office; a "POW CERTIFICATE" from the Philippine Veterans Administration; a Purple Heart award certificate; and a Processing Affidavit. All of this evidence was submitted to the Department of the Army which found the evidence insufficient to warrant a change in the prior certification in 1957. The evidence submitted by the appellant in support of this claim was not previously of record, and is, therefore, new. However, this evidence is not material because it does not establish that the appellant had verified service with USAFFE or with the recognized guerrilla forces during World War II. This is because the service department, after considering the new evidence, did not certify that the appellant was a member of USAFFE or had recognized guerrilla service. VA is bound by the service department's certification as to a claimant's military service. Duro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 530 (1992) Therefore, this new evidence is not material because there is not a reasonable possibility that, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, both old and new, it would change the outcome of the issue on appeal. Smith v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 178 (1991). Since new and material evidence has not been submitted, the claim for basic eligibility for VA compensation is not reopened. ORDER The claim for basic eligibility for VA compensation is not reopened. The appeal is denied. NANCY I. PHILLIPS 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.