Citation Nr: 18144749 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-51 422 DATE: October 25, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss and Tinnitus The Veteran is seeking to establish service connection for both bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. He contends both disorders began in service and have continued ever since. The record shows he served from February 1953 to November 1953. In September 2016, the Veteran’s wife submitted a statement in support of his claim. She confirmed that she has known the Veteran since before his active service. She recalled having received a phone call from the Veteran during service notifying her he was being hospitalized because of having his ear drum “busted” due to rifle fire. She also reported he was discharged from the military due to this injury and has had trouble with his hearing ever since. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issues of service connection for either bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus, because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has a current hearing loss or tinnitus disability and, if so, whether either is related to the reported in-service incidents, taking into account the Veteran’s and his wife’s lay statments. Prior to any VA examination and opinion, the Regional Office (RO) should develop the record to the extent possible. A review of the record reveals that the Veteran’s service treatment and personnel records were destroyed by fire. He was notified of this in July 2015 and offered an opportunity to provide information or to provide copies of any records in his possession. In July 2015, he provided a Form NA 13055 to assist in the reconstruction of the records. On this form he noted treatment at the Fort Brooks Hospital in May 1955. In February 2016, the Veteran submitted a statement confirming he does not have any of his service treatment records, but that he was treated in approximately May 1953 at the San Juan VA Caribbean Hospital for the conditions claimed. As noted above, the Veteran’s DD Form 214 shows his dates of service as between February 1953 and November 1953, and show he was discharged at Fort Buchanan in Puerto Rico. To date, the RO has not successfully obtained any service treatment records from any alternative sources, to include the hospitals identified. A January 2018 Deferred Rating Decision suggests the RO is still attempting to obtain records. A remand is required to allow VA to request these potentially relevant records. Entitlement to a TDIU Finally, because a decision on the service connection issues could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claim for a TDIU, therefore, is also required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to obtain as much of the Veteran’s complete service personnel records and service treatment records as possible, including continuing the development noted in the January 2018 Deferred Rating Decision and seeking the records identified by the Veteran in July 2015 and February 2016. (Records from treatment at Ft. Brooks Hospital in May 1955 and San Juan VA Caribbean Hospital in May 1953.) 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any current hearing loss and tinnitus. If hearing loss and/or tinnitus are currently diagnosed, the examiner should opine whether they are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, or disease, including any noise exposure experienced by the Veteran. The examiner, in the rationale for any opinion expressed, should comment upon the Veteran’s reported history, both in written statements and at the time of the examination, as well as the Veteran’s wife’s September 2016 statement. The examination report should include reasons for any opinion expressed. If the medical professional completing the report is unable to provide an opinion without resort to speculation, he or she should state whether the inability is due to the limits of the person’s knowledge, the limits of medical knowledge in general, or there is additional evidence that would permit the needed opinion to be provided. 3. After completing the above actions, to include any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any claim remains denied, the Veteran should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Adamson, Counsel