Citation Nr: 18150672
Decision Date: 11/15/18	Archive Date: 11/15/18

DOCKET NO. 16-47 172
DATE:	November 15, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from June 1974 to June 1994. 
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded.
The Veteran stated that he experienced hearing loss “in the upper ranges” immediately after his discharge from service. Although it is unclear if he was referencing audio tests during or after his service, he appears to report that he “beat” annual hearing test machines in the 1980s and early 1990s—which is when he was on active duty—so he could continue being a pilot. See August 2016 substantive appeal. He also reported slowly progressive hearing loss from his active duty flying. See June 2015 VA treatment records. A VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss disability is not related to his military service and noted that the first sign of hearing loss symptoms was in August 2012. See July 2016 VA examination. Given the Veteran’s statements regarding hearing loss since service, the VA examiner’s opinion is based on an inaccurate factual premise, and remand is necessary for a new opinion.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records for the Veteran’s hearing loss disability from July 2016 to the present.
2. After the above development is completed, the AOJ should arrange for a VA examination of the Veteran to determine the nature and likely cause of his bilateral hearing loss disability. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following:
Is it at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability was either incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service? Please explain why. The examiner must discuss the Veteran’s reports that he experienced hearing loss immediately after his discharge from service, had slowly progressive hearing loss, and would “beat” audiological hearing tests from the 1980s and early 1990s.

3. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures.
 
E. I. VELEZ
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Sandler, Associate Counsel