Citation Nr: 18141568
Decision Date: 10/11/18	Archive Date: 10/10/18

DOCKET NO. 16-23 467
DATE:	October 11, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active service from July 1969 to September 1970. 
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
The Veteran contends that he has bilateral hearing loss that is due to in-service exposure to noise from gunfire, grenades, and artillery.  He was provided a VA audiological examination in March 2016, which revealed a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.  However, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss is not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event in military service.  As a rationale for that opinion, the examiner explained that the Veteran’s entrance and separation examinations contain only whispered voice test results.  In addition, no frequency-specific threshold data are included in the Veteran’s service treatment records, the Veteran’s military occupational specialty has a low probability of exposure to acoustic trauma, and there is no evidence to corroborate the Veteran’s testimony of combat.
The Board finds the March 2016 VA examiner’s opinion to be inadequate for decision-making purposes because it essentially dismisses the Veteran’s assertions of in-service noise exposure due to his military occupational specialty and a lack of evidence to show he engaged in combat.  The Board finds the Veteran to be credible in his assertions because, although the record does not show combat-related rewards or include other information showing that the Veteran engaged in combat, the record does show that the Veteran had foreign service in Vietnam.  The Board concludes that the types of noise the Veteran has reported are generally consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a).  To be adequate for decision-making purposes, an opinion must reflect consideration of his credible assertions.  The case must therefore be remanded so that another opinion may be obtained.  See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). 
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) related to his in-service exposure to noise from gunfire, grenades, and artillery.
The clinician must note that, under applicable law, the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing loss disability is not always fatal to a service connection claim.  See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992).  Evidence of a current hearing disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service.  See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993).  Therefore, the fact that there are no in-service audiometric test results showing that the Veteran had in-service hearing loss does not necessarily mean that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is not etiologically related to his active service.  In this case, the Veteran is considered competent and credible in his contention that he was exposed to noise from gunfire, grenades, and artillery during active service.  The clinician’s opinion should reflect consideration of whether, given the in-service noise exposure, the evidence establishes that the Veteran’s hearing loss was incurred in active service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service, such as being the delayed result of the in-service noise exposure.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).
 
MICHAEL MARTIN
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T. J. Anthony, Counsel