Citation Nr: 18150432 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 14-42 798 DATE: November 15, 2018 REMANDED The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the Air National Guard from April 1989 to February 1990, November 1991 to July 1992, March 1993 to May 1993, March 1994 to May 1994, December 1994 to January 1994, September 1997 to March 2000, January 2003 to June 2003, and from June 2008 to August 2008. His service was under honorable conditions. These matters are on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision. In his October 2014 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. In October 2017 he was notified of his November 2017 scheduled hearing; however, he failed to appear or request to reschedule the hearing. As such, the Board may proceed to adjudicate this claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e) (2018). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. See argument Below at 2 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus began while serving as a maintenance technician in Iraq in 2003 due to loud engine and flight line noise. He further contends that his symptoms worsened while serving in Afghanistan in 2008, as his tent was located next to the F-15 trim pad. Available service treatment records do not demonstrate a hearing loss or tinnitus disability. A June 2007 audiogram demonstrates a significant threshold shift from 500 to 4000 Hertz, bilaterally, when compared to a January 2001 audiogram. In June 2007, right ear hearing loss is demonstrated at 4000 Hertz, prior to active service in June 2008. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2013, during which bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was diagnosed. The examiner indicated that he reviewed the Veteran’s audiometric test results between his active duty period in 2000 and prior to another active duty period in 2008. The examiner opined that based on these audiograms, the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss was more likely due to his civilian job. He also opined that the Veteran’s current bilateral tinnitus was most likely a symptom of his current hearing loss and/or his civilian job. The Board finds the June 2013 VA examiner’s opinion inadequate to adjudicate the claim, as the examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s statement that he first noticed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus during active service in 2003, which worsened during active duty in 2008. Moreover, the examiner failed to provide any rationale for the opinion offered. Finally, the examiner did not address whether the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss disability preexisted his period of service in 2008. Therefore, these issues must be remanded for adequate VA medical opinions. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). With respect to the Veteran’s current claims, VA has a duty to assist the Veteran by obtaining complete service treatment records for his eight periods of active service. In a May 2013 response, a representative from the Idaho Air National Guard indicated that the Veteran’s service treatment records were sent to Randolph Air Force Base in Texas in 2011. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction must obtain these service treatment records and associate them with the record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2018). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran's claims, to include complete service treatment records from confirmed periods of service. If any requested records are unavailable, or the search for such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact should clearly be documented in the record and the Veteran so notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). All steps taken to attempt to obtain the above records should clearly be documented in the record. 2. Once the record is developed to the extent possible, all pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by an appropriate VA physician who has not provided a prior opinion in this case. The Veteran need not appear for an examination unless deemed necessary by the physician assigned to offer an opinion. Following a review of the record, the physician should state a medical opinion with respect to the bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus present during the period of the claim. Specifically, the examiner must address the following: Is there a 50 percent or better probability that the right ear hearing loss disorder was present in service (in 2008) and, if so, did the disorder clearly and unmistakably exist prior to the Veteran’s entrance onto active duty? With respect to any such disorder which the examiner believes existed prior to the Veteran’s entrance onto active duty in 2008, was the disorder aggravated by service? Please indicate the degree of certainty as to whether or not the disorder (s) was or was not aggravated by service. With respect to any currently present disorder which the examiner believes was not present during service, is there a 50 percent or better probability that the disorder is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service? In providing the opinions, the examiner must discuss the theory of delayed or latent onset of hearing loss, as well as the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his noise exposure while serving as a maintenance technician in a tent in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he was exposed to loud engines and flight line noise. The examiner must also comment on the Veteran’s statements regarding his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus symptoms, to include that they began during active service in 2003 and worsened during active service in 2008. For purposes of the opinions, the physician should assume that the Veteran is credible to report a history of the aforementioned symptoms. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If an opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what additional evidence, if any, would allow for a more definitive opinion. Another examination of the Veteran should only be performed if deemed necessary by the physician providing the opinions. 3. Then, the AOJ should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, he and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period for response before the case is returned to the Board for further appellate action Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sara Schinnerer, Counsel