Citation Nr: 18139884
Decision Date: 10/01/18	Archive Date: 10/01/18

DOCKET NO. 14-41 944
DATE:	October 1, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
Regarding the Veteran’s service connection claim for hearing loss and tinnitus, he asserts these are due to his active service.  Specifically, at a May 2018 Board hearing, he testified that he was exposed to jet engine noise during his active service as he was stationed on the flight line due to his duties as a firefighter.  He testified that hearing protection, when worn, did not provide adequate protection.
The Veteran’s STRs show that between a May 1962 audiological examination and a December 1963 audiological examination, he had 5 decibel threshold shifts at the 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 hertz levels.
In March 2010, the Veteran’s physician Dr. Joseph J. Bradfield reported that the Veteran appeared to have significant high frequently hearing loss.
In June 2011, a VA examiner opined that that the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus were less likely than not due to his active service as the Veteran’s audiograms during service did not show hearing loss.
In May 2012, Dr. Bradfield opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus more likely than not “may be” attributed to his history of noise exposure during his active service.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination to obtain an opinion on the significance, if any, of the minimal threshold shifts in hearing acuity during the Veteran’s active service and the etiology of any current hearing loss and tinnitus.
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiology examination.  The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and/or tinnitus either began during or was otherwise caused by his air service, to include noise exposure sustained therein.  Why or why not?  
(Continued on the next page)
 
The examiner should specifically comment on the clinical significance, if any, of threshold shifts in the Veteran’s hearing acuity during his active service and whether those shifts suggest that jet noise exposure caused his current hearing loss.  The examiner should also discuss Dr. Bradfield’s opinion.
 
MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T. Berryman, Counsel