Citation Nr: 18148358
Decision Date: 11/08/18	Archive Date: 11/07/18

DOCKET NO. 15-00 391
DATE:	November 8, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Marine Corps from February 1974 to June 1974 and from November 1974 to May 1978.
The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus. He reports noise exposure in service from working with firearms which included shooting down helicopters and exposure to small firearms all day in close proximity. The Veteran reports that he was pistol range instructor and machine gunner during service and that he was exposed to a lot of gunfire during that time. Although his DD 214 shows that his military occupational specialty was that of a cook, it also shows that he was commended as a rifle marksman and pistol expert. He claims that he was given hearing protection during service but that he did not wear them all the time because they malfunctioned and he had to help others. He also claims that when he wore hearing protection it did not help. He claims his hearing decreased during service and has continued since his separation from service. 
While the Board has obtained opinions on this matter, the opinions do not address the Veteran’s description of unprotected noise exposure in service which he provided in more detail after the opinion obtained by the Board.  On remand, an addendum opinion should be obtained to address these matters. 
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain a VA addendum opinion. The examiner must be asked, following a review of the record, to opine whether it is at least as likely as not, i.e., is there a 50/50 chance or greater that the Veteran’s hearing loss disability and/or tinnitus is related to any incident of service to include his reports of noise exposure in service from firearms. In doing so, the examiner should consider: (a) the Veteran’s statement received September 6, 2018 regarding the extent of his noise exposure which should be accepted as true regardless of the military occupational specialty listed in personnel records as well as his claim of his claim of decreased hearing during service which has continued since his separation from service. 
The examiner is also asked to specifically comment on the concept of a delayed onset hearing loss (i.e., does absence of pertinent complaints and no available audiometry at separation preclude opinion as to a nexus between the current disability and exposure to noise trauma in service). 
For purposes of the opinion, the Veteran should be considered a reliable historian. A complete rationale must be provided for any opinion offered. If additional examination is required in order to enter an opinion on the matter requested above, such an examination should be scheduled.
2.  Thereafter, readjudicate the claims.  If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time to respond. 

 
T. Mainelli
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T.S. Willie