Citation Nr: 18145047 Decision Date: 10/26/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-32 674 DATE: October 26, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from March 1964 to March 1966. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) notes that the Veteran’s appeal originally included a claim for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition. However, in the Veteran’s June 2016 substantive appeal, he stated that he only wished to appeal the denial of his service connection claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. Specifically, he contends that his hearing loss and tinnitus were incurred during his period of active service as a result of his occupation as a field artillery specialist. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty exposed him to heightened level of military noise. In an April 2013 VA hearing and tinnitus examination, the Veteran’s diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was confirmed. The severity of his bilateral hearing loss met the criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 to be considered a disability for VA purposes. The VA examiner noted it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s hearing loss was caused by or is the result of an event in military service. The VA examiner reasoned that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not related to service because hearing examinations at entrance and separation did not show an incurrence or aggravation of hearing loss. It is not permissible to base a negative opinion solely on normal hearing at separation from service without consideration of the Veteran’s lay assertions. The VA examiner did not address the Veteran’s lay statements that his hearing loss began during service and that ringing in the ears began during service, all as a result of his occupation as a field artillery specialist. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007) (holding that an examination must address the Veteran’s competent and credible lay evidence). Accordingly, the Board finds the VA examiner’s opinion is inadequate for purpose of determining service connection. A VA addendum opinion further discussing the etiology of the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is necessary for the Board to comprehensively evaluate the claims for service connection. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the examiner who conducted the April 2013 VA hearing and tinnitus examination so a supplemental opinion may be provided. If that examiner is no longer available, provide the Veteran’s claims file to a similarly qualified clinician. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner must provide a supplemental opinion as to whether: a. It is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss began during active service or is related to an incident of service. b. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s tinnitus began during active service or is related to an incident of service. The VA examiner should discuss the Veteran’s contentions that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus began during his period of active service, and that he experienced decreased hearing acuity and ringing in his ears while on active duty. The VA examiner is advised that the Board has found that the Veteran was exposed to heightened levels of military noise as a field artillery specialist. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. 2. Readjudicate the claim. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, the Veteran should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Riordan, Associate Counsel