Citation Nr: 18160124 Decision Date: 12/21/18 Archive Date: 12/21/18 DOCKET NO. 15-27 506A DATE: December 21, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to August 3, 2011 for the grant of service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to August 3, 2011 for the grant of service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to August 17, 2016 for the grant of service connection for sciatica of the right lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to August 17, 2016 for the grant of service connection for sciatica of the left lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a pharyngeal mass is remanded. Entitlement to increased evaluations for radiculopathy of left lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain, evaluated as 10 percent disabling prior to August 17, 2016, and as 20 percent disabling since August 17, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for radiculopathy of right lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for sciatica of right lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for sciatica of left lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a May 2006 Rating Decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for his service-connected lumbosacral strain and associated symptomatology; the Veteran did not file a timely Notice of Disagreement, and no relevant evidence was received within one year of this decision. 2. The claim upon which the eventual separate grants of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities were based was filed on August 3, 2011, and no document that can be construed as a claim of entitlement to service connection related to this disability was received between the May 2006 prior final denial and this date. 3. Disabilities of the sciatic nerves of the right and left lower extremities which were separate and distinct from the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities were not diagnosed until an August 17, 2016, VA examination. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 3, 2011, for the grant of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155, 3.156(b), 3.400 (2017). 2. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 3, 2011, for the grant of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155, 3.156(b), 3.400 (2017). 3. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 17, 2016, for the grant of entitlement to service connection for sciatica of the right lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155, 3.156(b), 3.400 (2017). 4. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 17, 2016, for the grant of entitlement to service connection for sciatica of the left lower extremity associated with lumbosacral strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155, 3.156(b), 3.400 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1951 to January 1954. Although the Veteran requested a Board videoconference hearing in his October 2016 VA Form 9, he indicated in correspondence dated in October 2018 that he desired to withdraw his request for a Board hearing. With respect to the Veteran’s claims decided herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2017); see also Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Veteran seeks earlier effective dates for the grants of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities (effective August 3, 2011) as well as sciatica of the right and left lower extremities (effective August 17, 2016). These disabilities were found by the RO to be secondary to the Veteran’s lumbosacral strain, which was initially service connected effective September 15, 1961, and which has been evaluated as 20 percent disabling since August 16, 1974. However, the Veteran and his attorney essentially argue that the associated radiculopathy and sciatica were reasonably raised by the record since 1974, and therefore should also be service connected back to that date. The effective date of an award of compensation based on an original claim for service connection will generally "be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later." 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2017); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) (2012); Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244 (2002). Except as otherwise provided by law, the effective date of an award based on an original claim shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). This statutory provision is implemented by a regulation which provides that the effective date for disability compensation will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date the entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2017). The date of entitlement to an award of service connection will be the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year after separation from service; otherwise, it will be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i). When a claim is denied, and the claimant fails to timely appeal that decision by filing a notice of disagreement within the one-year period prescribed in 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1), and a substantive appeal (VA Form 9 or equivalent statement) within 60 days of the statement of the case or within the remainder of the one-year period following notification of the decision in question, that decision becomes final and binding on him based on the evidence then of record and the claim may not thereafter be reopened or allowed, except upon the submission of new and material evidence or a showing that the prior final decision contained clear and unmistakable error (CUE). See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(b), 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 20.200 (2017). Similarly, the effective date of a claim for an increased evaluation “will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1). The effective date of an award of increased compensation, however, can be the earliest date as of which it was ascertainable that an increase in disability has occurred, if the application is received within one year from such date. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2); see also Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 511 (1997). Consequently, the award of an increased rating should normally be effective either on the date of receipt of the claim or on some date in the preceding year if it was ascertainable that the disorder had increased in severity during that time. A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary is necessary for disability benefits to be paid to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151 (2017). In this context, it should be noted that the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5110 refer to the date an application is received. While the term "application" is not defined in the statute, the regulations use the terms "claim" and "application" interchangeably, and they are defined broadly to include "a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit." 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) (2015); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198 (1992). Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations, effectively eliminating informal claims and requiring a "complete claim" on a form proscribed by the Secretary. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.160 (2017). However, prior to March 24, 2015, which is the time relevant time period in this appeal, "any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by [VA] ... may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought." 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (2017). Any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under laws administered by the VA from a claimant may be considered an informal claim. Such an informal claim must identify the benefits sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (2015). To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. See Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992). However, there is no provision in the law for awarding an earlier effective date based simply on the presence of the disability. See Brannon, 12 Vet. App. at 35. The mere existence of medical records generally cannot be construed as an informal claim; rather, there must be some intent by the claimant to apply for a benefit. Criswell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 501, 504 (2006). Likewise, the effective date for an award of service connection is not based on the earliest medical evidence demonstrating a causal connection, but on the date of the claim for service connection. See Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377 (1999). Here, a review of the procedural history of this case is warranted. The Veteran initially filed a claim of entitlement to service connection for a “back injury” in September 1961. He was provided with a VA examination in February 1962, at which time straight leg raise testing (in the knees and ankles) and plantar reflexes were both negative. In a March 1962 Rating Decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for chronic lumbosacral strain and assigned a noncompensable evaluation effective September 15, 1961. In February 1964, the Veteran filed a claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for his back disability. He was provided with a VA examination in March 1964, at which time straight leg raising was “good,” while Goldthwait’s sign was negative. Due to a finding of tenderness of the back, the RO increased the Veteran’s disability evaluation to 10 percent in a June 1964 Rating Decision. The Veteran underwent a scheduled VA examination in March 1969, at which time it was noted that he exhibited “excellent” bilateral straight leg raising and no neurological deficit. As such, in an April 1969 Rating Decision, the RO found that overall improvement had been demonstrated and decreased his disability evaluation to noncompensable. However, the Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement and was provided with another VA examination in June 1969, at which time straight leg raise testing and Lasègue testing were normal, although hyperextension of the right hip caused pain in the Veteran’s low back. As such, in an August 1969 Rating Decision, the Veteran’s 10 percent evaluation for lumbosacral strain was restored. In August 1974, the Veteran again filed a claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for his lumbosacral strain. He was provided with a VA examination in October 1974, at which time he subjectively reported increasing low back pain and that his legs would go to sleep after sitting for long periods of time. However, objectively, straight leg raise testing was within normal limits, bilaterally. Based on these results, in a December 1974 Rating Decision, the RO increased the evaluation for his lumbosacral strain to 20 percent effective August 16, 1974, the date he filed his claim for an increased evaluation. The Veteran did not file a Notice of Disagreement and no pertinent evidence was received within the one-year time period. Thus, the August 1974 Rating Decision became final. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2017). Thereafter, the Veteran underwent another VA examination in September 1976, at which time he subjectively reported severe lower back pain with occasional pain down the back of his legs and occasional loss of feeling in his legs before getting out of bed in the morning. However, objective examination revealed straight leg raise testing to 90 degrees, negative Lasègue testing, and negative Gaenslen’s testing. As such, in October 1976, the Veteran was notified that the evidence did not warrant any change in his 20 percent disability evaluation. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement in November 1976, indicating that he had been prescribed a Medtronic Neurological Stimulation Device. After reviewing the Veteran’s VA treatment records, the RO declined to award an increased evaluation in December 1976. In June 1977, the Veteran again filed a claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for his back disability. He was provided with a VA examination in July 1977, at which time he reported constant pain in his lower back, with pain down the back of both legs and an occasional loss of feeling in both legs; however, motor testing and sensory testing were within normal limits, and the examiner concluded there was no neurologic disorder present. As such, in September 1977, the RO informed the Veteran that evidence did not show increased disability of such magnitude necessary for an increased evaluation. In response, the Veteran submitted a timely Notice of Disagreement in September 1977. A November 1977 Statement of the Case continued the 20 percent evaluation for a lumbosacral strain. The Veteran testified in support of his claim at a January 1978 Decision Review Officer (DRO) hearing, at which time he described numbness in his bilateral legs. He was provided with another VA examination in March 1978, but the RO continued the denial of his increased evaluation claim in an April 1978 Supplemental Statement of the Case. In September 1978, the Veteran was provided with another VA examination to specifically test whether he had a neurological disability; however, motor testing, reflex testing, and sensory testing were again within normal limits, and the examiner concluded there was no neurologic disability. The RO again continued the denial of his increased evaluation claim in December 1978 Supplemental Statement of the Case. The RO denied the claim once more in an April 1979 Rating Decision after reviewing the most recent VA treatment records. Although the Veteran requested an extension to file a VA Form 9 in correspondence received in March 1979, a timely substantive appeal was never received. As such, these determinations also became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2017). In December 2005, the Veteran again filed a claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for his service-connected back disability. He was provided with a VA examination in January 2006, at which time he reported radiating pain and numbness down the posterior and lateral side of his left leg. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran as having radiculopathy of the left lower extremity by electromyography (EMG) findings which caused episodic pain, radiation, and numbness to his left lower extremity, and opined that this condition was as least as likely as not related to his service-connected back disability. Additionally, VA treatment records at this time documented chronic low back pain with left-sided radicular symptoms. However, in a May 2006 Rating Decision, the RO continued the 20 percent evaluation for lumbosacral strain, without assigning separate evaluations for radicular symptoms. Significantly, the Veteran did not file a Notice of Disagreement and no pertinent evidence was received within the one-year time period. Thus, the May 2006 Rating Decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2017). On August 3, 2011, the Veteran filed an Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. He was provided with a VA examination in October 2011, at which time the VA examiner concluded that the Veteran had radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities due to his service-connected back disability. As a result of these findings, in an April 2012 Rating Decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities as secondary to his service-connected lumbosacral strain, and assigned separate evaluations effective August 3, 2011, the date of the Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. In March 2013, the Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement in response to the effective dates and disability evaluations assigned. He was then provided with another VA examination on August 17, 2016, at which time he was diagnosed as having radiculopathy of the bilateral legs which affected the sciatic nerves in addition to the femoral nerves. As such, in a September 2016 Rating Decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for sciatica of the right and left lower extremities as secondary to his service-connected lumbosacral strain, and assigned separate evaluations effective August 17, 2016, the date of the VA examination which first demonstrated radiculopathy affecting the sciatic nerves in addition to the femoral nerves. At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran never filed separate claims of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy and/or sciatica of the right and left lower extremities. Rather, as demonstrated in the history above, following his initial grant of entitlement to service connection for lumbosacral strain in March 1962, he frequently filed claims of entitlement to an increased evaluation for his service-connected lumbosacral strain, and cited subjective neurological symptoms of the lower extremities as evidence of the worsening of this disability. As mentioned above, after a rating decision becomes final, an earlier effective date may be established only by a request for revision of that decision based on CUE. See Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296 (2006). “Free-standing” earlier effective date claims that could be raised at any time are impermissible because such claims would vitiate decision finality. Id. As neither the Veteran, nor his attorney, have argued for a revision of a prior decision based on CUE, the Board will not refer these “free-standing” earlier effective date claims. Significantly, with respect to the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy, there is no document dated between the RO's final denial in May 2006 and the August 3, 2011, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability that could be construed as a claim of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy or other neurological manifestation of his service-connected lumbosacral strain, or as a claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for his service-connected lumbosacral strain. The arguments of the Veteran and his attorney do not warrant a different result. The Veteran essentially contends that he should be awarded service connection effective as of 1974, as he asserts that the record reflected his subjective complaints of neurological symptomatology since that time. Although the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's claims, the Board is bound by the applicable statutes and regulations. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(c) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(a) (2017). Those laws and regulations provide specific guidance as to the documents on which effective dates may be based, and the fact that a disability or disabilities are of longstanding nature does not warrant a different result under these laws and regulations. Again, the May 2006 Rating Decision and all decisions by the RO prior to that date constituted final denials of entitlement to higher evaluations for the Veteran’s service-connected lumbosacral strain, to include whether separate evaluations for associated neurological symptomatology were warranted. A prior date of the claim that was denied in the final denial cannot serve as the basis for the effective date of the grant of service connection for this disability under general effective date principles for the reasons stated above, and neither the Veteran nor his attorney have cited any exception to these principles. To the extent that the Veteran contends that the effective date should be based on the date entitlement arose, the regulations make clear that whether the grant of service connection was based on a claim or an application to reopen, the effective date is the date of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later, and the date entitlement arose therefore cannot warrant an earlier effective date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(ii), (r). Here, the Veteran’s claim for an increase (i.e., his Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability) was received by VA on August 3, 2011. There is no other communication prior to this date (and since the most recent final denial in May 2006) that could serve as a claim of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy or a claim for entitlement to an increased evaluation for service-connected lumbosacral strain. Moreover, the are no medical records dated in the year preceding the Veteran’s August 3, 2011, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability referencing any neurological symptomatology, thereby rendering it unascertainable that an increase in his lumbosacral disability had occurred within one year from the August 3, 2011, date of claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2); see also Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 511 (1997). As such, the RO appropriately awarded the effective date on August 3, 2011, the date of the Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. With respect to the Veteran’s service-connected sciatica, the Board emphasizes that the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy of right and left lower extremities, with effective dates of August 3, 2011, was based on involvement of the bilateral femoral nerves. It was not until the VA examination on August 17, 2016, that involvement of L4/L5/S1/S2/S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerves) were diagnosed. Here, the Veteran’s claim for an increase (i.e., his Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability) was received by VA on August 3, 2011. However, a separate disability of the sciatic nerves (sciatica) which was separate and distinct from the disability of the femoral nerves (radiculopathy) was not diagnosed until the August 17, 2016, VA examination. This is the date entitlement arose. As such, the RO appropriately awarded the effective date of August 17, 2016, for the grant of entitlement to service connection for sciatica of the right and left lower extremities, as this was the date entitlement arose and was later than the date of the claim. For the foregoing reasons, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims for earlier effective dates for the separate grants of service connection for radiculopathy and sciatica of the bilateral lower extremities. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is therefore not for application and the claims must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). In so finding, the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s claims, and notes that the fact that the current claims for earlier effective dates must be denied does not preclude the Veteran from filing a motion alleging CUE in a prior Rating Decision. The Veteran is free to file such motion in the future. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran also seeks entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a pharyngeal mass; as well as increased evaluations for radiculopathy of left lower extremity, radiculopathy of right lower extremity, sciatica of right lower extremity, and sciatica of left lower extremity. Unfortunately, the Board finds that additional development must be undertaken before these claims can be adjudicated on the merits. With respect to the claims of entitlement to increased evaluations for radiculopathy of left lower extremity, radiculopathy of right lower extremity, sciatica of right lower extremity, and sciatica of left lower extremity, the Board notes that the most recent Statement of the Case was issued in September 2016, over two years ago. Since that time, additional VA treatment records from the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as well as various VA examination reports have been added to the claims file. Specifically, an April 2017 VA Peripheral Nerves Conditions examination report is directly pertinent to the increased evaluation claims on appeal. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105(e), for cases in which substantive appeals are received on or after February 2, 2013, as in the present case, if the claimant or the claimant’s representative submits evidence to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) or the Board for consideration in connection with the issue on appeal, then the Board may consider such evidence in the first instance unless the claimant or representative requests in writing that the AOJ initially review such evidence. This automatic waiver is an exception to the general requirement of a waiver of AOJ review or a Supplemental Statement of the Case considering new pertinent evidence. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37, 20.1304 (2017). However, this automatic AOJ waiver exception does not apply to evidence, such as the VA-generated records here, that was not submitted by the claimant or his attorney. Thus, in order to afford the Veteran every consideration, the Board finds that remand of these issues to the AOJ for consideration of this additional relevant evidence, and if any benefit sought is not granted, for issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37, 20.1304 (2017). With respect to the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, the Veteran testified that he experienced continuous hearing loss and tinnitus as a result of in-service acoustic trauma. Specifically, the Veteran testified that he did not wear hearing protective devices but nonetheless was exposed to acoustic trauma in the form of engine noise while jumping out of aircraft and noise from 105 mm, 155 mm, and 240 mm howitzers while working in the artillery battery in his capacity as an Artillery Survey Specialist with the 82nd Airborne Division. A review of the Veteran’s DD Form 214 indicates that he earned his Parachutist Badge, corroborating his account of being near aircraft noise while parachuting. The Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report exposure to loud noise in service, and that such assertion is credible because it is consistent with the circumstances of service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, in-service noise exposure can be conceded. Additionally, although a review of the Veteran’s service treatment records show that he scored 15/15 bilaterally on a whispered voice test at his January 1954 Report of Medical Examination at separation, the Board notes that whispered voice tests are notoriously subjective, inaccurate, and insensitive to the types of hearing loss most commonly associated with noise exposure, and cannot be considered as reliable evidence that hearing loss did or did not occur. The Veteran was provided with a VA audiological examination in May 2011, at which time the VA audiologist’s findings indicated that the Veteran had a hearing loss disability for VA purposes in his right ear but not in his left ear. Although the VA audiologist recognized that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty in the artillery field had a “moderate” to “high” probability of exposure to hazardous noise and conceded that the Veteran was exposed to noise in the military, he opined that the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss and tinnitus were not as least as likely as not caused by or due to military noise exposure. However, in his July 2012, Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran’s attorney alleged that the May 2011 VA audiological examination contained a material misrepresentation of facts and was intentionally misleading. Additionally, the Veteran has alleged that his hearing acuity (especially in the left ear) had worsened since that time, and requested as recently as September 2016 that his hearing acuity be retested. Given the evidence both for and against a finding that the Veteran’s diagnosed hearing loss and tinnitus were related to in-service acoustic trauma, coupled with his allegations that his left ear hearing loss had worsened since the most recent VA audiological examination in May 2011 (over seven years ago), the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to a new VA examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.327; Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Therefore, remand for another VA audiological examination is necessary prior to adjudication. Finally, with respect to the claim of entitlement to service connection for a pharyngeal mass, the Veteran alleges that this disability was caused by in-service exposure to unknown chemicals while stationed with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Specifically, the Veteran testified that he was placed on guard duty at a chemical warehouse at Fort Bragg where chemicals were transported in 55-gallon drums. The chemicals from these drums would spill onto the ground where he patrolled, causing his combat boots to become compromised and resulting in the chemicals coming into contact with this skin. The Veteran further alleges that the generalized dermatitis for which he is now service connected first manifested in service as a result of exposure to these chemicals, and that he was treated at the U.S. Army’s Station Hospital at Fort Bragg in 1951 and/or 1952 as a result of exposure to these chemicals. Unfortunately, notification was received from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in July 2016 that the Veteran’s personnel records had been determined to be fire-related. Given the Veteran's contentions and duties during service, an attempt must be made to ascertain the chemicals, if any, to which he was likely exposed. This attempt should include requesting the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to provide information as to which chemicals a soldier with the Veteran's duties would have likely been exposed between 1951 and 1952 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. If necessary, histories from the Veteran's various units from 1951 to 1952 should be obtained and searched in an attempt to learn the names of these chemicals. Thereafter, the Veteran should be provided with a VA examination to determine the likely etiology of his pharyngeal mass. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the JSRRC and request information regarding the likely duties of an Artillery Survey Specialist with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A list of the chemicals commonly handled during the course of these duties should be ascertained. The names of the units in which the Veteran served and dates he was assigned should be provided for use in determining these chemicals. JSRRC may use this information to obtain unit histories or other records in which it is likely that the use of chemicals and the names of those chemicals would be discussed. If JSRRC is unable to compile a list of the chemicals to which the Veteran was likely exposed, a memorandum to this effect should be placed in the record. 2. After completion of the above, compile a complete list of any chemicals to which it is likely the Veteran has been exposed, as may be found in his service personnel records and/or the research received from JSRRC. If the above records/research is unable to confirm the name of any chemicals to which the Veteran was likely exposed, a memorandum to this effect should be placed in the record. 3. After completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an examiner with appropriate knowledge and experience (specialist, if needed) in order to determine the nature and etiology of his diagnosed pharyngeal mass. All indicated tests and studies should be conducted. The claims file should be provided to the examiner, and the should review to become familiar with the pertinent facts. If a list of chemicals to which the Veteran is likely to have been exposed in service is able to be compiled, this must also be provided to the examiner. At the conclusion of the examination and review of the record, the examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's pharyngeal mass was incurred due to exposure to chemicals during active service, or incurred coincident with active service on any other basis. A comprehensive rationale for all opinions should be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide any of the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, then the examiner should state whether the inability is due to the limits of the examiner's knowledge, the limits of medical knowledge in general, or there is additional evidence that, if obtained, would permit the opinion to be provided. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the level of disability of his hearing loss. The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of this remand, should be made available to, and reviewed by, the designated examiner in conjunction with the examination. Puretone audiometry and Maryland CNC controlled speech discrimination test results must be provided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a) (2017). Based upon a review of the entirety of the claims file, the history presented by the Veteran, and the examination results, the examiner is requested to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s diagnosed hearing loss and/or tinnitus are causally related to his active duty service, to include his conceded in-service acoustic trauma. In rendering the above medical opinion, the examiner should bear in mind that the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing disability during service is not always fatal to a service connection claim. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). The examiner should not rely solely on the absence of hearing loss in service as a basis for any opinion. Evidence of a current hearing loss disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service, post-service audiometric findings meeting the regulatory requirements for hearing loss disability for VA purposes, and a medically sound basis upon which to attribute the post-service findings to the injury in service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, then it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. 5. Readjudicate the claims remaining on appeal, with consideration of all evidence associated with the claims file since the issuance of the September 2016 Statement of the Case. If any benefit sought is not granted, then furnish the Veteran and his attorney with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Anthony M. Flamini, Counsel