Citation Nr: 18143511 Decision Date: 10/19/18 Archive Date: 10/19/18 DOCKET NO. 18-14 559 DATE: October 19, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1963 to February 1965. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his service as a result of his duties associated with his military occupational specialty (MOS) as light weapons infantry. Specifically, he maintains that he daily trained with weapons, that his ears would ring for hours. See September 2016 VA Form 21-4138. In addition, he has also asserted he drove a personnel carrier during service, experienced ringing in his ears that never went away, he got used to it and after a while considered it normal. See March 2018 VA Form 9. He has also asserted that on his separation examination, the examining physician noticed he was having trouble hearing, but that the Veteran knew of a way to make certain to pass the hearing test to avoid delaying his separation from service. Id. After service, the Veteran has denied any acoustic trauma, stating he worked a desk job working in the computer field. See September 2016 VA Form 21-4138. However, more contemporaneous evidence shows that in April 1966, he reported working as a machinist since August 1965, and in June 1967, the Veteran indicated that he was still employed in that field. See April 1966 Army Reserve Qualifications Questionnaire; June 1967 Army Reserve Status and Address Verification. The Veteran was afforded a VA audiological evaluation in January 2017, which revealed bilateral hearing loss. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The examiner also diagnosed tinnitus. The VA examiner opined that it was not at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) the Veteran’s hearing loss was caused by or a result of an event in military service, noting the Veteran’s hearing was normal upon induction and separation, and therefore less likely than not the hearing loss was related to military noise exposure. The examiner also opined the tinnitus was at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) a symptom associated with the hearing loss, as tinnitus is known to be a symptom associated with hearing loss. The examiner did not comment on the Veteran’s MOS and lay statements regarding his conceded noise exposure during service, which is consistent with the circumstances of his service, or the possibility of delayed-onset hearing loss, requiring an addendum opinion on remand. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus. The claims file should be provided to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. No additional examination is necessary, unless the examiner determines otherwise. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus had their onset in service or are otherwise related to service, to include as a result of conceded noise exposure from weapons noise and driving a personnel carrier during service. In addressing this question, please accept as true that the Veteran was exposed to routine noise exposure in conjunction with his service duties, and please do not rely solely on the fact that the Veteran had “normal” hearing at separation from service to support the opinion. Please also discuss the possibility of delayed-onset hearing loss, noting that contemporaneous evidence demonstrates that from at least August 1965 through June 1967, the Veteran was employed as a machinist, although he reports that (presumably, the majority of) his post-service employment involved working in the computer field with no noise exposure. If unable to opine without speculation, provide a statement as to whether there is any additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Marley, Counsel