Citation Nr: 18153774 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16-28 008 DATE: November 28, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1983 to January 1987, from January 1987 to September 1992, and had National Guard active duty service from January 2008 to May 2008. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. In March 2016, the regional office issued a rating decision denying the Veteran’s claim for service connection for tinnitus. In July 2016, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement disputing this denial of service connection. The present record does not reflect the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC) in response to this notice of disagreement. In Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999), the Court held that where a notice of disagreement is filed, but an SOC has not been issued, the Board must remand the claim to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) so that an SOC may be issued. 38 C.F.R. § 20.200. This case is no different. Accordingly, this case is remanded so that the AOJ may issue an SOC on the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. In January 2015, the Veteran was provided a VA examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss. At that examination, the examiner diagnosed hearing loss in the left ear, but did not find that it was service-connected. No diagnosis of hearing loss in the right ear was made because the Veteran did not have hearing loss for VA purposes. The examiner in this VA examination, however, based the etiology section’s rationale for the finding of no service connection on an incomplete review of the Veteran’s military service records. Specifically, the etiology section states that the Veteran had normal hearing at separation, and no decrease in hearing from November 1982 to April 1992. See January 2015 VA Examination. The Veteran, however, also had active duty service in the National Guard from January 2008 to May 2008. There is no evidence that this period was considered by the examiner when reaching this diagnosis. See March 2016 Service Record. When the VA undertakes to provide a VA examination, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Accordingly, the VA examination was based on an inaccurate factual premise and remand for an addendum opinion is necessary to obtain a supplemental opinion that considers this fact. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the Veteran and his representative a statement of the case that addresses the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. If the Veteran perfects an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9, the issue should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 2. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) and/or any other appropriate source to verify the Veteran’s complete service personnel and treatment records, to include his enlistment and separation examinations. 3. Request all National Guard service treatment/personnel records and associate them with the claims file. Any negative responses should be properly documented in the record, and the procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e) should be followed. 4. Obtain any outstanding records of pertinent medical treatment from VA or private health care providers. If these records are unable to be obtained, appropriately notify the Veteran and his representative pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 5. After Steps # 1-4 are completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of his hearing loss. The Veteran’s claims file, including this remand, should be made available for review by the examiner. The VA examiner must offer an opinion as to the following: a. Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., fifty percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hearing loss became manifest during any period of the Veteran’s service (between February 1983 and January 1987; January 1987 and September 1992; or January 2008 to May 2008) or within one year of the Veteran’s separation from any period of active service. b. The examiner must provide a rationale for all opinions offered. If the examiner feels that the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, he/she should state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), by a deficiency in the record (i.e. additional facts are required), or by the examiner himself/herself (because he/she does not have the needed knowledge or training). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Voight, Associate Counsel