11-10 103, 11-10 103

Veteran served in Republic of Vietnam (active duty Aug 1967–Nov 1970) and later developed diabetes mellitus.
VA initially denied service connection for diabetes (Aug 2006), and an April 2008 decision confirmed and continued that denial; the April 2008 decision became final due to failure to perfect appeal.
The core dispute was whether the Veteran has type I or type II diabetes; type II is a listed disease presumptively service-connected for Vietnam herbicide exposure.
New evidence, including a July 2016 VA endocrinologist opinion, concluded it is at least as likely as not the Veteran has type II diabetes and explained prior diagnostic testing was unreliable after long-term insulin use.
The Board found the type II filings properly construed as an application to reopen the prior denial and that the July 2016 opinion constituted new and material evidence raising a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.
Applying the benefit-of-the-doubt rule and the presumption for herbicide exposure in Vietnam, the Board granted service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, and reopened the claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether new and material evidence was submitted to reopen the finally denied diabetes claim	Veteran argued subsequent filings/diagnoses of type II diabetes reopen the final April 2008 denial	VA AOJ treated filings as a new claim; prior final decision denied based on a type I diagnosis	Reopening granted: July 2016 expert opinion is new and material and raises reasonable possibility of substantiation
Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus	Veteran asserts diabetes (type II) is presumptively service-connected due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam	VA contested based on record showing prior diagnosis of type I diabetes (not presumptively service-connected)	Granted: Board found at least as likely as not the Veteran has type II diabetes and awarded presumptive service connection

Velez v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 199 (2009) (distinguishing new claim vs. reopening and when diagnoses create distinct claims)
Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (2008) (a distinctly diagnosed disease has a different factual basis from a prior claim)
Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (claims must be liberally construed for pro se veterans lacking medical expertise)
Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010) (38 C.F.R. § 3.156 has a low threshold; "reasonable possibility" standard favors reopening)
Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366 (2001) (reopening is a jurisdictional prerequisite before adjudicating the merits)