Citation Nr: 1306363 Decision Date: 02/25/13 Archive Date: 03/01/13 DOCKET NO. 11-11 638 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Tennessee Department of Veterans' Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T.S. Willie, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1953 to July 1956. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. The Veteran was afforded a Travel Board hearing by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2012. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Veteran submitted additional evidence in November 2012. However, he waived RO consideration of the additional evidence in the first instance at that time. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). 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 appeals the denial of service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and bilateral tinnitus. He relates that he served in the Army as a tank commander and was exposed to daily noise hazards. Given his military occupational specialty as a tank commander, acoustic trauma in service is conceded. After examining the record, however, the Board concludes that further assistance to the Veteran is required in order to comply with the duty to assist as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002). In this regard, it appears that during the Veteran's VA examination and in a separate treatment note, a January 2008 evaluation at Schumaier and Associates was referenced. This evaluation has not been associated with the record and it does not appear that an attempt to obtain this record has been made. The Board finds that a remand is warranted so that the RO can attempt to locate the January 2008 evaluation and any other relevant private treatment records that have not been associated with the file. To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claims and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, a remand is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. The RO/AMC should ask the Veteran to identify all sources of treatment that he has received for his hearing loss and tinnitus, and provide any releases necessary for VA to secure records of such treatment or evaluation. The RO/AMC should obtain for the record copies of the complete records of such treatment and evaluation from all identified sources. Any records obtained must be associated with the appellant's claims folder. If the RO cannot locate any identified record, the RO must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them. The RO must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The claimant must be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the Veteran's claims for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and bilateral tinnitus, on the basis of all evidence of record and all applicable laws and regulations. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), which includes a summary of additional evidence submitted, and any additional applicable laws and regulations. The SSOC must provide reasons and bases for the decision reached. Thereafter, the Veteran and his representative should be given the opportunity to respond. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ Cheryl L. Mason 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) (2012).