Citation Nr: 18144164
Decision Date: 10/24/18	Archive Date: 10/23/18

DOCKET NO. 16-24 535A
DATE:	October 24, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ear disability is remanded.  
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active naval service from December 1988 to March 1991.    
This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.   
The Board has recharacterized the issue of service connection for bilateral ear pain to service connection for a bilateral ear disability.  See Clemons v Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).  
The Board finds that additional development is required before the claim on appeal is decided.  
The Veteran asserts that she has a bilateral ear disability that is related to her active service.  Specifically, the Veteran contends that she developed a bilateral ear disability following keloid removal with partial removal of her ear lobe, which occurred during her period of active service.  Moreover, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran received in-service treatment related to her ears.  To date, no VA medical opinion has been obtained with regard to the Veteran’s claimed bilateral ear disability.    
Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of her claimed bilateral ear disability.  McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006).  
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file.  
2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an examiner with appropriate expertise to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed bilateral ear disability.  The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner.  Any indicated studies should be performed.  
Based on the examination results and a review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present bilateral ear disability began in service, was caused by service, or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service.  The examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of her symptoms.  
The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided.
3. Confirm that the VA examination report and all medical opinions provided comport with this remand, and undertake any other development determined to be warranted.  
4. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal.  If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response.  Then, return the case to the Board.  
 
Kristin Haddock
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	C. O’Donnell, Associate Counsel