## Facts

- Lambert Gobber, a U.S. Navy veteran (1954–1977), sought service connection for hearing loss, attributing it to prolonged jet-noise exposure.
- The VA initially denied the claim because testing did not show a hearing-loss disability under VA standards.
- In 1983, Gobber sought to reopen; testing then showed hearing loss, but the VA again denied service connection for lack of evidence linking the condition to service.
- In 1989, Gobber again sought to reopen and submitted a purported in-service hearing test he said he copied from his service medical records at discharge.
- The submitted test copy contained no date and no name or other identifier tying it to Gobber or to a specific period of service.
- The VA refused to reopen, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed, finding the document not “new and material” and concluding VA had satisfied its duty to assist after requesting service records through standard repositories (including NPRC).

## Issues

1. Whether an undated, unidentified audiometric test copy constituted “new and material” evidence sufficient to reopen a previously denied service-connection claim under 38 U.S.C. § 5108.
2. Whether VA’s duty to assist required additional development to identify the test or conduct further searches for service records without specific leads indicating where relevant evidence would be found.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the Board’s refusal to reopen the claim.
- The Court held the undated, unnamed audiometric test was not material because it could not be reliably connected to Gobber or to an in-service timeframe and did not raise a reasonable possibility of changing the prior outcome.
- The Court held VA did not breach the duty to assist; the duty did not require open-ended or speculative searches for evidence absent specific information identifying likely sources of relevant records.
- The Court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary affirmance.

## Legal Principles

- A final VA denial may be reopened only upon submission of “new and material” evidence; evidence that cannot be authenticated or linked to the claimant and relevant period is not material.
- Materiality determinations are largely factual and are reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard.
- VA’s duty to assist requires reasonable, targeted efforts to obtain identified, relevant evidence; it does not require indefinite development or a speculative “fishing expedition.”
- The claimant must provide sufficiently specific information to trigger additional development, including identifying probable sources of relevant records beyond standard repositories.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Board’s finding that an undated, unidentified hearing-test copy was not new and material evidence to reopen a hearing-loss claim and ruled that VA’s duty to assist was satisfied by reasonable record requests and did not extend to speculative searches without specific leads.


Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 470 (1992)