Citation Nr: 18152986
Decision Date: 11/27/18	Archive Date: 11/26/18

DOCKET NO. 14-14 080
DATE:	November 27, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from September 1968 to August 1971.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in July 2017.
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
Unfortunately, another remand is necessary.  In the prior remand, the Board requested a new opinion and directed the examiner that simply observing that hearing loss was not noted on the Veteran’s exit examination would be an inadequate rationale for a negative etiology opinion.  See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 160 (1993).  However, although the examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure, the negative opinion again was based solely on the fact that the Veteran “presented with normal hearing following military service.”  The Board further notes that, although the examiner attributed the current hearing loss, by elimination, to post-service noise exposure, the examiner did not address the evidence in the record indicating that the Veteran used hearing protection in his post-military occupation as an electrician.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician to determine whether the current bilateral hearing loss is related to the Veteran’s military service.  The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination.  
Following review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the hearing loss began in or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure.
The examiner must address the significance or insignificance of any threshold shifts in the Veteran’s hearing acuity between the July 1968 induction examination and the June 1971 separation examination.
The examiner should address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding continuity of symptomatology since onset and/or since discharge from service.  The examiner should address any other pertinent evidence of record, including the Veteran’s report that he was required to wear hearing protection in his post-service occupation as an electrician.
All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale.  If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided.
 
M. HYLAND
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	K. Josey, Associate Counsel