Citation Nr: 18158287 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 18-30 277 DATE: December 14, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1956 to February 1959. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2017 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran has recently appealed the issue of service connection for spasmodic dysphoria. However, as it is not yet certified to the Board, and it appears the RO is still working on the claim, the Board does not address that issue herein. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran’s STRs are silent for complaints or treatment for hearing loss or tinnitus during service. Whisper tests upon entrance and separation from service are normal. The Veteran’s MOS is Unit Supply Officer. The Veteran appeared for a VA examination in August 2017. Bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes was diagnosed. The Veteran reported tinnitus which he stated began shortly after discharge from service. The examiner found the tinnitus likely a symptom of the hearing loss. The examiner found the hearing loss and tinnitus less likely as not related to service. The examiner noted the Veteran’s MOS had low probability of noise exposure and that the in-service whisper tests reflect no complaints of hearing loss. The examiner stated that the Veteran supplied records from K.A. dated 1972 and 1977, reflecting bilateral high frequency hearing loss. By December 2017 statement, the Veteran stated he was exposed to significant noise levels from tanks, airplanes, rocket launchers, M1 rifle qualification, machine gun fire, artillery and similar weaponry, without hearing protection. The Veteran stated that in 1959, upon release from service, he did see a hearing specialist on referral from his family doctor. He also had to sit in the front row during law school classes to hear, post-service. In February 2018, the examiner provided an addendum with consideration of the Veteran’s December 2017 statement. The examiner restated the opinion that the hearing loss is less likely as not related to service, based on the STRs not showing in-service hearing loss. However, the examiner acknowledged that whisper tests are not frequency or ear specific and would not rule out for any significant threshold shifts or initial onset for hearing loss while in active duty. By June 2018 Substantive Appeal, the Veteran indicated he was in the active reserves during law school although he does not recall appearing for any military medical exams. The Veteran has also indicated by September 2018 correspondence that he is receiving Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. Here, remand is required for a clarifying VA examiner’s opinion. The VA examiner’s opinions of record are insufficient, as they rely on the lack of evidence found in the STRs. Further, the examiner acknowledged that whisper tests are not frequency or ear specific and would not rule out for any significant threshold shifts or initial onset for hearing loss while in active duty. As well, remand is required to associate outstanding records with the claims file. The VA examiner stated that the Veteran supplied records from K.A. dated 1972 and 1977, reflecting bilateral high frequency hearing loss. However, these records are not associated with the claims file. Further, SSA records should be associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA clinical records and associate them with the claims file. All records/responses received must be associated with the claims file. 2. Please obtain and associate with the claims file all active reserves records. All records/responses received must be associated with the claims file. 3. Give the Veteran the opportunity to identify any private treatment records for association with the claims file. All records/responses received must be associated with the claims file. (a.) In particular, please request treatment records by a hearing specialist seen in 1959, and any other records indicating treatment for hearing loss within the year from separation from service, and from separation from service to present, and (b.) Private treatment records from K.A. dated 1972 and 1977, reflecting bilateral high frequency hearing loss. 4. Contact the Social Security Administration and request that SSA provide VA with the Veteran’s complete SSA records, including any administrative decision(s) on his application for SSA disability benefits and all underlying medical records. A copy of any records obtained from SSA, to include a negative reply, should be included in the claims file. All records received must be added to the claims file. 5. Send the Veteran’s claims file to an appropriate clinician for a clarifying opinion to determine the nature and etiology of his present bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including in-service noise exposure. (a.) Please consider and discuss the Veteran’s lay statements, including that he endured in-service noise exposure with no hearing protection, was treated for hearing loss directly after service, struggled during law school classes to hear, and was treated for bilateral, high frequency hearing loss in 1972 and 1977. (b.) Please discuss and clarify the VA examiner’s statement that whisper tests are not frequency or ear specific and would not rule out for any significant threshold shifts or initial onset for hearing loss while in active duty. (c.) Please note that lack of evidence in the STRs is an insufficient basis for a negative nexus opinion. 6. After the above is complete, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims. If a complete grant of the benefits requested is not granted, issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) to the Veteran and his representative to afford them the opportunity to respond. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. M. Georgiev