BVA Case 01-345: Depression

STEINBERG, Judge: The appellant, through counsel, seeks review of a November 17, 2000, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) that concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen his previously and finally disallowed claim for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

The Court also determined that the appellant's mother's April 1979 statement to the Probate Court of the County of 2 Wayne, Michigan [hereinafter Probate Court], regarding the appellant's mental stability was not new and material evidence that the appellant had exhibited schizophrenia during service or within the one-year presumption period under 38 C.

A March 1991 RO decision confirmed the November 1988 RO decision and determined that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the veteran's service-connection claim.

In December 1994, the RO concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the veteran's claim for a mental disorder.

In a February 2000 SSOC, the RO, after reviewing various medical examination reports and the April 1998 VA examination report, indicated that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the veteran's claim.

In the November 17, 2000, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board determined that the veteran had not appealed the August 1988 RO decision and that "[t]he evidence associated with the claims folder since [that] decision .

After reviewing the evidence of record at the time of the August 1988 RO decision and the medical evidence subsequently submitted pursuant to the April 1997 Board remand, including the April 1998 VA psychiatric examination report, the Board determined that the evidence submitted by the veteran was "essentially cumulative of what was known at the time of the original August 1988 [RO] decision" in which "the central rationale behind the denial [of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder] was that [his paranoid schizophrenia] was not noted during service or within any one[-]year presumpti[on] period" and thus concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen his claim.

The Secretary argues in his brief that there is a plausible basis in the record for the Board's determination that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the appellant's service-connection claim.