BVA Case 04-2310: Ptsd

The appellant perfected an appeal to the Board,and in August 1999,the Board denied a disability rating greater than 30%for his PTSD and denied entitlement to a TDIU rating.

Alternatively,the appellant argues that the June 17,1997,VRS report was new and material evidence that VA never adjudicated in conjunction with the September 1996 RO decision, in violation of 38 C.

156(b),VA must consider any new and material evidence received during the one-year appeal period following an RO decision as having been filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period.

When VA fails to consider new and material evidence submitted within the one-year appeal period pursuant to 3.

To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.

160(e)(2008)(a claim to reopen is any claim for benefits received after final disallowance of an earlier claim ); see also Muehl , supra (holding that the Board erred in determining that evidence submitted during the appeal period was a claim to reopen a previously disallowed claim).

In its April 2006 decision,the Board found that the June 30,1997,document that the appellant submitted did not contain the requisite information for it to be considered an NOD.

He contends that in June 1997,at the time he submitted the VRS report,his December 1995 claim for benefits was a pending claim that had not been finally adjudicated,and thus,the Board erred in ignor[ing] the application of 38 C.