Citation Nr: 0810339 Decision Date: 03/28/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 06-03 612 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Millikan Sponsler, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active military duty from February 1964 to January 1966. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by the Wichita, Kansas, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The appeal is remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center, in Washington, DC. REMAND The Board finds that remand is required for a new audiological examination. A January 2005 VA audiological examination was conducted. After examination and a review of the claims file, the examiner found that because the service discharge examination noted normal hearing, hearing loss and tinnitus were not due to active service. The Board finds that a new examination and opinion are required because the VA opinion does not address whether the veteran's hearing loss and/or tinnitus were incurred in service, regardless of whether any hearing loss was shown in service or on service separation. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993) (holding that if hearing loss as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 is not shown in service or at separation from service, service connection can be established if medical evidence shows that it is actually due to incidents during service). Accordingly, the case is remanded for the following action: 1. The RO must provide the veteran an appropriate VA examination to determine the etiology of any hearing loss and tinnitus found. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. The veteran's entire claims file and this remand must be made available and reviewed by an appropriate VA examiner and a nexus opinion must be offered regarding the etiology of the veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus. All testing, to include an audiogram, must be performed. The examiner is reminded that VA law and regulation does not preclude service connection for post-service hearing loss where hearing was within normal limits at the time of separation from service. It is requested that the examiner record a detailed history of in- service and post-service noise exposure. After a review of the examination findings and the entire evidence of record, the examiner must render an opinion as to whether any current hearing loss and tinnitus is related to the veteran's period of military service, or to any incident therein, to include as due to noise exposure. The examiner must specifically address the question of whether any degree of hearing loss or tinnitus began as a result of any in- service noise exposure. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide the above requested opinions without resort to speculation, it must be so stated. The report prepared must be typed. 2. The RO must notify the veteran that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim, and that the consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2007). In the event that the veteran does not report for any scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It must also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. 3. The examination report must be reviewed to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this remand. If the report is deficient in any manner, the RO must implement corrective procedures. 4. After completing the above action, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the paragraphs above, the claims must be readjudicated. If the claims remain denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the veteran and his representative. After the veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. No action is required by the veteran until he receives further notice; however, he may present additional evidence or argument while the case is in remand status at the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). _________________________________________________ JOY A. MCDONALD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).