Citation Nr: 18143313 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/18/18 DOCKET NO. 11-20 758 DATE: October 18, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to service-connected hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1982 to June 1984, and from February 1987 to October 1993. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in August 2015. The transcript is of record. The matter was previously before the Board in November 2015, at which time it was remanded for further development. It has been returned to the Board for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Although the November 2015 Board remand directed the RO to issue a statement of the case (SOC) on the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, that has yet to take place. As such, the matter is again remanded so that an SOC may be issued, and so that the Veteran has the opportunity to perfect an appeal. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). 2. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to service-connected hypertension is remanded. The November 2015 Board remand directed the RO to schedule a VA examination to explore the etiology of the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction, including the theory of secondary service connection. The RO twice attempted to schedule examinations; the Veteran failed to present on both occasions. However, he has indicated in documentary submissions that transportation has been an ongoing problem for him and that it was impossible for him to attend these examinations, in one case due to transportation plans being disrupted at the last minute. A September 2018 brief submitted on the Veteran’s behalf reiterates his transportation-related difficulties, and requests that a new examination be scheduled. In order to afford the Veteran every reasonable opportunity to prove his claim, the Board will again remand the matter in order that a VA examination be scheduled to explore the etiology of erectile dysfunction in this case. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After obtaining the necessary authorization, update the file with any VA or private treatment records relevant to the Veteran’s claims. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified to that effect. 2. Provide the Veteran and his representative an SOC on the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. If the Veteran perfects an appeal as to that issue, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction. All indicated tests and studies should be conducted and all clinical findings reported in detail. The entire claims file should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with this request. For any identified current disability, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (e.g. at least a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction began in service or is otherwise related to service. If it is determined that erectile dysfunction did not begin in service and is not otherwise directly related to service, the examiner is directed to comment on whether erectile dysfunction has, on an at least as likely as not basis, been caused or aggravated beyond its normal course of progression by the Veteran’s service-connected hypertension. (Continued on the next page)   4. After completing the above development, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If any benefit remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After they have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. Gayle Strommen Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Z. Sahraie, Associate Counsel