Citation Nr: 18155258 Decision Date: 12/03/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 17-24 642 DATE: December 3, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1954 to May 1957. The Veteran had requested a Board hearing, but withdrew the request in a May 2017 statement. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran contends that he developed his currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss due to in-service acoustic trauma. He has reported being exposed to loud noise from riffle fire, explosions and a bazooka during basic training. Reportedly, after an incident involving the firing of a bazooka, he experienced hearing loss in his left ear after for approximately a month. He contends that his hearing has progressively worsened since service discharge. In this case, a VA audiological examination in October 2016 and VA treatment records reveal a hearing loss disability as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran’s service treatment records are unavailable and were apparently destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). VA has a heightened obligation to assist the claimant in the development of his case, and to explain findings and conclusions, as well as carefully consider the benefit of the doubt rule when records in the possession of the government are lost or destroyed. See O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). VA treatment records and the VA examination report in October 2016 show that after service the Veteran was employed at the Blue Grass Army Depot for 22 years prior to retiring in 2013. The Veteran endorsed a history of excessive noise exposure occupationally while employed at the Blue Grass Army Depot, with no hearing protection device. He indicated that his hearing was tested annually. Thus, to assist the Veteran in the development of his claim in accordance with the heightened duty requirement of O'Hare, these records should be obtained. Additionally, a new VA examination that considers the Veteran’s competent lay statements of acoustic trauma in service, as well as any evidence added to the claims file pursuant to the remand directives, should be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the file audiology records from the VAMC since January 2017. 2. The AOJ should ask the Veteran to identify all providers of evaluations or treatment he received for his hearing loss and to provide authorizations for VA to obtain such records. Specifically, he should be asked to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for his former employer at the Blue Grass Army Depot to obtain copies of hearing tests. If any private records identified are not received pursuant to the AOJ’s request, the Veteran should be so notified and advised that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that records are received. If possible, the Veteran himself should submit such evidence. 3. After the above development is completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine whether his claimed bilateral hearing loss is related to service. The examiner should note that the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing disability is not always fatal to a service connection claim and should consider the Veteran’s reports and lay statements. A complete history of symptoms should be elicited from the Veteran. Any tests and studies deemed necessary should be conducted and all findings should be reported in detail. In rendering the opinions detailed below, please discuss the significance of the in-service noise exposure the Veteran has described, and the Veteran’s report of hearing problems since service, particularly since an incident involving the firing of a bazooka during basic training. Please note that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the opinions. The audiologist should review the claims file and respond to the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that any current right and/or left ear hearing loss disability found on examination, is related to his period of active duty service, to include his reported in-service acoustic trauma? Please explain why or why not, specifically discussing why his current hearing loss is/is not a delayed response to his in-service noise exposure. Furthermore, if the audiologist attributes the Veteran’s current hearing loss exclusively to post-service acoustic trauma, then he or she should explain the basis for the conclusion that the in-service acoustic trauma did not result in permanent hearing loss. (b) If it is less likely than not that any current right and/or left ear hearing loss disability found on examination, had its clinical onset during his period of active service, is it at least as likely as not that any such hearing loss had its clinical onset within one year of his separation from service in May 1957? Please explain why or why not, specifically discussing why his current hearing loss is/is not merely a delayed response to his in-service noise exposure. A discussion of the underlying reasons for any opinions expressed must be included in the audiologist’s report, to include reference to pertinent evidence of record and medical literature or treatises where appropriate. JOHN J CROWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Azizi-Barcelo, Tatiana