Citation Nr: 18140876 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 16-14 468 DATE: REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Army from January 1966 to December 1968. While the Veteran stated in his February 2016 Substantive Appeal that he wanted to appeal bilateral hearing loss, he also discussed ringing in his ears following basic training in his statement. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran also expressed the intent to appeal the denial of service connection for tinnitus, and the issue is properly before the Board. 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran’s personnel records have not been sought or associated with the claims file. The Regional Office requested records pertaining to herbicide agent exposure, but did not obtain the Veteran’s personnel records, which would detail the duties of his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), including whether he worked around aircraft, as he reported in multiple lay statements. On remand, the Veteran’s personnel records must be sought and associated with the claims file. Additionally, the Veteran identified private treatment records that were not sought or obtained prior to adjudication. The Veteran reported that records pertaining to his hearing loss were transferred to State of the Art Hearing. Further, he reported treatment at Lovelace Medical Center that is related to the issues on appeal. Attempts must be made in order to identify those relevant records and associate them with the claims file. Finally, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran reported traumatic noise exposure through use of weapons without hearing protection during basic training, and service around helicopters and aircraft. The Veteran reported experiencing changes in his hearing, particularly after basic training. He reported experiencing a ringing in his ears after firing weapons, and that the ringing continued to present day. These lay statements present an indication that his bilateral hearing loss may be related to active duty service. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 82-3 (2006). Accordingly, a VA examination is necessary on remand. 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. See argument in section 1. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and his representative in order to identify any outstanding non-VA treatment records regarding the issues on appeal. If non-VA providers are identified, obtain releases for those records. Make all reasonable attempts to obtain the non-VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. If such records cannot be obtained, inform the Veteran and his representative, and afford an opportunity for him to provide these outstanding records. 2. Obtain any relevant, outstanding VA treatment records that are not already associated with the claims file. If no records are available, the claims folder must indicate this fact and the Veteran should be notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). All attempts to contact the Veteran should be documented in the record. 3. Attempt to obtain, through all indicated and appropriate sources, the Veteran’s personnel records. All efforts to obtain these records should be documented. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile. This determination should be documented in the claims file and the Veteran must be notified. 4. Once the aforementioned development is complete, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to assess the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. A complete copy of the claims file must be made available to the examiner. The examiner should take a thorough history regarding observable symptomatology from the Veteran. After a thorough review of the medical and lay evidence of record, the examiner should opine as to the following: (a.) Does the Veteran have a present diagnosis of hearing loss for VA purposes? (b.) If so, is it at least as likely as not (i.e. a probability of 50 percent or more) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset during active service or within one year of separation from service, or, otherwise resulted from active military service? (c.) Does the Veteran have a present diagnosis of tinnitus? (d.) If so, is it at least as likely as not (i.e. a probability of 50 percent or more) that the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset during active service or within one year of separation from service, or, otherwise resulted from active military service? The examination report should specifically state that a review of the record was conducted. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all opinions provided. If an opinion cannot be provided without to resorting to mere speculation, the examiner should identify all medical and lay evidence considered in this conclusion, fully explain why this is the case and identify what additional evidence (if any) would allow for a more definitive opinion. 5. Following completion of the foregoing, the AOJ should review the record and readjudicate the claims on appeal. If any remain denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate supplemental SOC, afford the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD H. Fisher, Associate Counsel