Citation Nr: 18146054 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-31 533 DATE: October 30, 2018 REMAND Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from July 1966 to July 1988. This appeal to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) arose from a February 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran has perfected a timely appeal. The Veteran elected a Decision Review Officer (DRO) review of his claim. The Veteran withdrew his travel board hearing request, and requested his case to be forwarded to the Board for a decision. See April 2014 Notice of Disagreement; June 2014 DRO review process election; May 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC); June 2016 Substantive Appeal (VA Form-9); February 2017 Hearing Request Withdrawal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss After a thorough review of the Veteran's claims file, the Board has determined that additional evidentiary development is necessary prior to the adjudication of the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The enlistment audiogram conducted in July 1965 was voided. The reference audiogram from December 1983 examination after being exposed to noise duties exhibited the Veteran’s puretone thresholds as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 0 0 5 5 5 LEFT 5 0 5 5 5 In his last in-service examination conducted in December 1987, the Veteran did not report having hearing loss at the time. In the audiology evaluation, the Veteran’s puretone thresholds read as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 5 0 5 5 20 LEFT 5 5 10 10 5 Any post-service VA or private medical records regarding the Veteran’s hearing loss were not submitted for the record. The only evidence of record regarding the Veteran’s hearing loss is a VA audiological evaluation form dated April 2014. However, the evaluation form was signed only by the Veteran, and not signed by an audiologist. Even if a doctor signed the form, the form was not properly filled out. The Veteran’s puretone thresholds read as follows, according to the form: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 20 40 50 60 LEFT 15 20 25 30 45 In a statement dated May 2016, the Veteran claims that he submitted VA audiology evaluations dated May 2012 and July 2013 exhibiting hearing loss. He also notes a recent evaluation dated February 2016. However, these evaluations were not submitted as evidence. In the Veteran’s appellant brief dated June 2018, the Veteran, through his representative, contends that he suffers from hearing loss and that it is a direct result of his military service, from either being an instructor on a jet aircraft or being on a flight crew. He also argues that he should have been afforded a VA examination regarding his hearing loss claim. The April 2014 audiological evaluation form is inadequate, as it does not meet the examination requirements set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a), which requires the examination to be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and puretone audiometry test. The Board does acknowledge that the Veteran’s audiometric scores as recorded do indicate bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes according to 38 C.F.R. §3.385, which indicates that there may be a current disability to establish the first element of service connection. See 38 C.F.R. §3.85 (impaired hearing will be considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or when the speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC test are less than 94 percent). Based on the current evidence of record, the Board finds that the record is insufficient to appropriately decide the issue on appeal, since there is a question regarding whether the Veteran has a current disability of bilateral hearing loss. Since the April 2014 audiological evaluation was inadequate to determine the existence of a current disability, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded an adequate VA examination according to the standards set forth in 38 C.F.R. §4.85(a). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran an opportunity to identify any pertinent treatment records for his claimed disability of bilateral hearing loss. The RO/AMC should secure any necessary authorizations. 2. Additionally, all updated VA treatment records should be obtained. If any requested outstanding records cannot be obtained, the Veteran should be notified of such. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. Any and all indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review. After record review and examination, the VA examiner should offer his or her opinion with supporting rationale as to the following inquiries: (a) Does the Veteran have a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes? (b) If the answer to (a) is yes, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that such bilateral hearing loss disability was incurred in, or caused by the Veteran's service, including military noise exposure? The basis for each opinion is to be fully explained with a complete discussion of the pertinent lay and medical evidence of record and sound medical principles, including the use of any medical literature or studies, which may reasonably explain the medical analysis in the study of this case. All opinions should be supported by a clear rationale, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Syesa Middleton, Associate Counsel