BVA Case 08-2005: Back

LANCE, Judge :The appellant,James Baker,through counsel,appeals a June 24,2008, Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that found new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim for service connection for residuals of a left eye injury and denied his claims for service connection for left and right ankle disabilities and a right leg disability.

Initially,the appellant does not present any argument concerning the Board's finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for a jaw injury.

Construing the appellant's statement as a claim to reopen, the RO issued a rating decision in March 1995 informing the appellant that his claim for a left eye disability could not be reopened because he had failed to submit new and material evidence.

His claim was denied by the RO in a February 2001 rating decision on the basis that the evidence submitted since the previous final denial was not new and material because it [was]not directly relevant to the issue being considered,that is,service incurrence of a chronically disabling eye condition.

In April 2004,the RO found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the appellant's left eye disability claim.

Specifically,the RO noted that,while the appellant had submitted new evidence,the evidence was not considered new and material evidence sufficient to reopen []his claim,as it [was]not directly relevant to the issue currently under consideration,that is a chronic disability of the eye, with loss of visual acuity during .

As to the appellant's claim for a left eye disability, the Board found: Evidence received since the February 2001 denial of service connection for residuals of a left eye injury consists of duplicate SMRs, VA treatment records,a January 2003 statement from the [appellant]'s friend .

While the Board found that the above mentioned evidence,with the exception of the SMRs,was new, in that it ha[d] not been submitted to VA before, the Board nonetheless concluded that it was not material.