BVA Case 98-157: Ptsd

In August 1984, the VARO notified the appellant that new and material evidence was required to reopen his claim.

The VARO denied the request to reopen because the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence.

In May 1990, the claim was denied because the result of his eye examination indicated that his problem was not related to [his] service[-]connected disability.

The VARO notified the appellant that this claim was a duplicate claim [which was] previously submitted, and that it was necessary for him to submit new and material evidence which ha[d] not been previously considered .

In a January 1993 decision, the Board found that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claims for service connection for headaches, back disorder, stomach disorder, or an increased rating for conjunctivitis.

In September 1994, the VARO issued a rating decision which denied an increased rating for conjunctivitis, denied service connection for a skin condition related to Agent Orange exposure, and stated that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claims for service connection for headaches, back problems, and a stomach disorder.

A rating decision was issued denying an increased evaluation for conjunctivitis, denying service connection for a skin condition resulting from exposure to Agent Orange, and finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the appellant's claims.

The appellant offered testimony only on the issue of new and material evidence to reopen his claim for the back injury, headaches and stomach injuries.