13-10 026, 13-10 026

Veteran served Feb–Jun 1983 and Oct 1988–Oct 1991 and appealed a July 2012 RO decision denying Graves’ disease service connection.
July 2012 decision framed the claim as Graves’ disease; Board recharacterized claim as service connection for a thyroid disability (includes Graves’, hyperthyroidism, iatrogenic hypothyroidism).
An unappealed September 1985 RO decision previously denied reopening the Graves’ claim.
New evidence since 1985 consists primarily of the Veteran’s lay statements (including reports citing medical literature) that emotional stress in service triggered her thyroid condition and contemporaneous complaints of left lower‑extremity swelling/pain in service.
Records show post‑service VA treatment in late 1983, within six months of separation, leading to a Graves’ disease diagnosis and initiation of medication.
A February 2012 VA examiner diagnosed Graves’ disease but provided an inadequate opinion about onset during the first period of service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether new and material evidence was submitted to reopen the 1985 denial	Veteran: her lay statements about in‑service emotional distress causing Graves’ disease and continuity of symptoms are new and material	VA: prior unappealed 1985 denial stands unless new, noncumulative evidence raising a reasonable possibility is submitted	New and material evidence received; claim reopened
Whether thyroid disability is service‑connected	Veteran: symptoms in service and diagnosis shortly after separation show onset in service or continuity	VA: February 2012 opinion concluded disease preexisted service and was not aggravated by service (opinion inadequate on onset during first service period)	Evidence is in equipoise; benefit of the doubt to Veteran — service connection granted

Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (VA may recharacterize claims to reflect proper scope)
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990) (when evidence is in equipoise, benefit of the doubt rule favors the claimant)