Citation Nr: 0813783 Decision Date: 04/25/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 07-08 645 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus. WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Riley, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1966 to April 1970. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2006 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri, which, in pertinent part, denied entitlement to service connection for the above conditions. In December 2007, the veteran provided testimony at a hearing before the undersigned at the Boston RO. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The veteran contends that he incurred a bilateral hearing loss disability and bilateral tinnitus as a result of active duty service as a combat information monitor aboard aircraft. His certificate of discharge from service confirms that he served in the Air Force and received training as a combat information monitor. The veteran has also reported that he spent two years flying aboard an uninsulated aircraft. He testified that he began to experience tinnitus in service, and had experienced tinnitus since service. He also testified that he had no noise exposure after service. Under the VCAA, VA is obliged to provide an examination when the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or signs and symptoms of a current disability, the record indicates that the disability or signs and symptoms of disability may be associated with active service; and the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The evidence of a link between current disability and service must be competent. Wells v. Principi, 326 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The threshold for finding a link between current disability and service is low. Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006); McLendon v. Nicholson, at 83. The veteran is competent to state when the symptoms of his claimed hearing loss and tinnitus occurred. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 405 (1995). The veteran's report of in-service noise trauma and continuity of symptomatology trigger VA's duty to obtain an examination. An examination is needed to obtain a competent medical opinion as to whether current tinnitus or hearing loss is related to service. This case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The veteran should be afforded a VA examination to ascertain the etiology of any current hearing loss disability and tinnitus. The claims folder must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination report should reflect that the claims folder was reviewed. After examining the veteran and conducting an examination the examiner should proffer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or better probability) that any current hearing loss disability or tinnitus had its onset in service or is otherwise the result of a disease or injury (including noise exposure) in service. The examiner is advised that the veteran is competent to report injuries and symptoms in service, and that the veteran's reports must be considered. The rationale for any opinions should also be provided. 3. If the benefits sought on appeal are not fully granted, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued, before the case is returned to the Board, if otherwise in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ Mark D. Hindin 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).