Citation Nr: 18146649 Decision Date: 10/31/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 15-03 810 DATE: October 31, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from December 1966 to August 1970. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for his tinnitus in January 2015. Following the examination, the VA examiner opined the Veteran’s tinnitus less likely than not was caused by or a result of military noise exposure. In support of the opinion, the VA examiner noted how the Veteran reported that he noticed his tinnitus approximately 15 years after separation from service, and that the Veteran did not relate his current tinnitus disability to anything specific in the military. The examiner indicated that in service there were complaints of hearing loss and ear pain, but no complaints of tinnitus. Although indicating tinnitus was less likely than not due to the Veteran’s military noise exposure, the rationale provided did not clearly address the question of the relationship to noise exposure, irrespective of the Veteran not relating his tinnitus to anything specific to his military service. The record reflects the Veteran had in-service noise exposure as his military occupational specialties included light weapons infantryman and general construction machine operator; he also served in Vietnam from May 1967 to August 1970. Additionally, the examiner opined that tinnitus was less likely than not a symptom associated with the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The rationale provided was that the conditions can occur separately and that while they are commonly present together they are not necessarily mutually occurring and have varying causes. It further stated that hearing loss does not cause tinnitus. This rationale is general and does not discuss the specifics of the Veteran’s case; it also does not address whether bilateral hearing loss aggravated the Veteran’s tinnitus. For the above reasons, an additional VA opinion is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: Provide the Veteran an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and possible relationship to service of the Veteran’s tinnitus. His electronic claims file, including a copy of this decision and remand, must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. The examiner should provide responses to the following: A) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s tinnitus is related or attributable to his military service, to include his noise exposure therein? In answering this question, the examiner is to specifically comment on whether the Veteran’s current tinnitus is related to his in-service noise exposure irrespective of the Veteran reporting at the January 2015 VA examination that his tinnitus began approximately 15 years after service. B) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s tinnitus is caused by his service-connected bilateral hearing loss? C) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s tinnitus is aggravated by (i.e., any increase in the severity beyond its natural progression) his service-connected bilateral hearing loss? The examiner must fully explain the rationale for all opinions, with citation to supporting clinical data/lay statements, as deemed appropriate. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Breitbach, Associate Counsel