BVA9502809 DOCKET NO. 93-08 226 ) 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 paranoid schizophrenia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Bernard T. DoMinh, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1989 to November 1989. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 1992 rating decision by the Montgomery, Alabama, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied the veteran's application to reopen her previously denied claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that she has submitted evidence which is new and material, serving to reopen her previously denied claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder (paranoid schizophrenia). She acknowledges that the condition preexisted service but argues that it was aggravated by service. 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 new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for schizophrenia. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In an unappealed May 1990 decision, the RO denied service connection for schizophrenia; in August 1992 the veteran applied to reopen her claim. 2. Evidence received subsequent to the May 1990 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 prior decision which denied service connection for schizophrenia. CONCLUSION OF LAW The additional evidence received subsequent to the May 1990 decision of the RO, which denied service connection for schizophrenia, is not both new and material, the claim is not reopened, and the May 1990 RO decision is final. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. Factual Background The veteran's service medical records show that she was evaluated as having a normal psychiatric system during a March 1989 enlistment examination. During this examination she reported no history of psychiatric problems or treatment for mental illness. She commenced active duty in April 1989. In July 1989, she was arrested and confined to the stockade after exhibiting bizarre behavior and assaulting an officer. She was then admitted to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Psychiatric examination during this period produced a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. It was revealed that, prior to her entry into service, she had a history of treatment for paranoid schizophrenia which started in 1986. Preservice treatment included, in part, two hospitalizations for schizophrenia, with hallucinations, delusions and other psychotic symptoms, for which psychotropic medication was administered. During the in-service hospitalization, the veteran's schizophrenia was stabilized with medication. A medical board found that her schizophrenia existed prior to her entry into service and made her unfit for further service, and concluded that it was not permanently aggravated by active service. In November 1989, she was medically discharged from service because of her mental condition. In December 1989, the veteran filed a claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. She reported the condition began before service, in 1986, but that it was aggravated by the stress of basic training and advanced individual training. With her initial claim, the veteran submitted a November 1989 letter from N.S. Xavier, M.D., Medical Director of Mental Health Board of Chilton and Shelby Counties, Inc. Dr. Xavier said he treated the veteran for several months before her military service, and first saw her in June 1988 when the diagnosis was paranoid schizophrenia. She reportedly thereafter also had symptoms of depression, and was treated with anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medication. Dr. Xavier said he had just treated the veteran again (in November 1989), and he offered comments on changes he noticed compared to before service. He said that before service the veteran was working as a secretary, was able to drive, her concentration was adequate, and she did not have significant problems with her energy. He said that now the veteran was unable to work due to sleepiness, psychomotor retardation, poor concentration, and social withdrawal. In May 1990, the RO denied service connection for paranoid schizophrenia, holding it preexisted service and was not aggravated therein. In June 1990 the RO informed the veteran of the adverse decision and of her appellate rights, but she did not timely appeal. In August 1992 the veteran applied to reopen her claim, and she thereafter submitted the following summarized evidence. Private medical records from Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Center, Alabama Psychiatric Services, P.C., and Family Counseling & Related Services, show extensive preservice psychiatric treatment from 1987 to 1989, with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia and depression. These preservice records refer to a history of psychiatric symptoms since about 1985, psychiatric hospitalizations, treatment with psychotropic drugs, and exacerbations and remissions of psychiatric symptoms. The treatment records include a report which shows that, during a March 1989 counseling session, the veteran told the counselor that she was having problems with her stepmother, and that she had recently enlisted into the army in order to get out of the conflict. She told the counselor that she did not tell the army the truth about her mental condition. After being counseled, she told the counselor she was going to tell army personnel the truth about her mental condition. Treatment records for the period following her separation from service include a number of records from Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Center and other health care providers, dated in and after November 1989. In November 1989, when seen at Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Center, she reported she had just been discharged from service after a psychiatric hospitalization for a schizophrenic episode. The current diagnosis was paranoid schizophrenia, in remission, and additional treatment was given thereafter. In a March 1990 statement from Workshops, Inc., program manager Darcy Seagle reported that from January to March 1990 the veteran had successfully participated in and completed a personal work adjustment training program, and had just been hired in a sheltered employment position with Workshops, Inc. In a July 1990 case closure statement from the State of Alabama Division of Rehabilitation and Crippled Children, Vocational Rehabilitation Office, counselor Lexi Ambrose noted the veteran had successfully obtained employment as a collections agent for Chrysler Credit Corporation and her case was being closed. Records from Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Center show periodic psychiatric outpatient treatment during 1990 for paranoid schizophrenia and depression. Psychotropic medication and counseling were provided, and the records describe exacerbations and remissions of symptoms. In November 1990 it was noted that no treatment had been given for ninety days, and the veteran had failed to keep her scheduled appointments; she was discharged from the clinic. It was commented she had done well with earlier treatment and had obtained employment and independent living status. A private psychiatric report, received by the RO in September 1992, notes that the veteran was examined in August 1992. The diagnosis was schizophrenia, with symptoms of hallucinations and disorganized thinking. Impairment was said to be severe. In an October 1992 statement, [redacted] reported that he was the veteran's former employer and that she worked as a secretary/receptionist for his business from May 1988 to March 1989. Mr. [redacted] stated that he was aware of the veteran's mental condition prior to her being hired by him, and that her mental condition did not cause any problems throughout the period of her employment with his company. He stated that he knew her to be proficient employee up to the time when she left his company to enlist in the army. Psychiatric counseling notes from Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Center, dated in September 1992 and October 1992, show the veteran's condition to be improved and note a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, in remission. In various statements dated in 1992, the veteran asserted that her preservice paranoid schizophrenia was aggravated by service, partly due to inadequate care during service. II. Analysis Service connection for paranoid schizophrenia was previously denied by the RO in a May 1990 decision, which the veteran did not timely appeal. Under such circumstances, the decision of the RO is final, with the exception that the appellant may reopen her claim if new and material evidence is submitted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105. In August 1992 the veteran applied to reopen the claim. It must first be determined whether or not new and material evidence has been submitted 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 be of sufficient weight or significance as to 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); Cox v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 95 (1993). When the RO denied the claim in 1990, it considered the veteran's 1989 service medical records, a 1989 letter from Dr. Xavier, and the veteran's own statements in support of her claim. The records then available showed extensive psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia before service, treatment in service, and a continuation of treatment after service. In denying service connection in 1990, the RO held that the preservice psychosis was not aggravated by service. Since the time of the 1990 RO decision, the veteran has submitted a quantity of preservice and post service treatment records, a statement from a preservice employer, and additional statements of her own. Much of this is cumulative of information already known to the RO when it denied the claim in 1990, and in that sense the additional evidence is not new. The veteran's own statements, alleging service aggravation of preservice schizophrenia, are repetitive of her arguments made prior to the 1990 RO decision, and her additional statements are not new evidence. Reid v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 312 (1992). To the extent that some of the additional evidence is new, it is not material because, when viewed in the context of all the evidence it raises no reasonable possibility of a change in the adverse 1990 RO decision. In this regard, the additional medical records actually tend to show a worse psychiatric condition before service than in the years immediately after service, which is evidence against service aggravation. The additional medical evidence and the statement of the preservice employer, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, only depict a preservice, service, and post-service pattern of exacerbations and remissions of schizophrenic symptoms, without actual worsening of the underlying condition on account of service, and such pattern is not indicative of service aggravation. Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 292 (1991). The Board concludes that the evidence submitted by the veteran after the May 1990 RO decision is not both new and material. Therefore, her claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia may not be reopened, and the May 1990 RO decision remains final. ORDER The veteran's application to reopen her claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia 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.