Citation Nr: 18124366 Decision Date: 08/06/18 Archive Date: 08/06/18 DOCKET NO. 15-26 008 DATE: August 6, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the appellant’s claim for service connection for tinnitus is reopened and, to that extent only, the appeal is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. FINDING OF FACT 1. In an October 2009 decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for tinnitus. 2. New and material evidence to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus has been received. CONCLUSION OF LAW Evidence received since the October 2009 RO decision that denied service connection for tinnitus, which was the last final denial with respect to this issue, is new and material; the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1154 (a), 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156, 20.200. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from July 1969 to March 1972. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. The appellant’s claim for service connection for tinnitus was finally denied by the RO in an October 2009 rating decision. After a review of the evidence submitted in association with the appellant’s January 2012 claim to reopen, the Board finds that a clinical opinion indicating an association between the Veteran’s service and tinnitus is new and material and, therefore, sufficient to reopen the appellant’s claim for service connection for tinnitus. However, the Board cannot, at this point, adjudicate the reopened claim because further assistance to the appellant is required to comply with VA’s duty to assist the appellant in developing his claim.  REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The claims file includes a November 2012 VA examination opinion in which the clinician found that the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus were not consistent with acoustic trauma. The clinician also noted that the Veteran had normal hearing upon separation from service. However, the Board notes that the January 1972 audiogram results reflect abnormal hearing in the left ear at the 4,000 HZ level because his threshold was 25 decibels. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). Thus, a supplemental opinion is required. (The Board notes that the Veteran’s pre-induction audiogram was performed in 1968. Because the 1968 examination report does not specifically state whether the American Standards Association (ASA) units or the International Standards Organization-American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI) units were used, the Board will assume that the ISO-ANSI units were used because this is more favorable to the Veteran (otherwise, if using the ASA standard, the audiograms would reflect less hearing acuity on entrance and abnormal hearing in the right ear upon entrance)). SSA records reflect that post-service, the Veteran worked for 32 years at an airport as an aircraft re-fueler, which involved driving a hydraulic truck, and working on the jetway. The earliest clinical evidence of hearing loss and/or tinnitus is not for several decades after separation from service. A 2005 SSA record reflects that the Veteran had no observable problems with hearing. A 2009 private clinical record reflects that he had “grossly normal hearing”. An October 2009 VA examination report reflects that the Veteran reported the onset of left ear tinnitus one year earlier (in 2008). An October 2012 VA examination report reflects that the Veteran could not report an onset date for his left ear tinnitus. A September 2014 VA audiology note reflects that the Veteran reported constant left ear tinnitus for the past three to five years. In correspondence, the Veteran has asserted continuity of hearing loss and tinnitus since service. Evidence indicates that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. An October 2005 VA record reflects that the Veteran was establishing care at that facility but that he had previously had care at the Biloxi VAMC. Records from the Biloxi facility may provide evidence of an earlier hearing loss and/or tinnitus complaint to support the Veteran’s claims. Any VA treatment records are within VA’s constructive possession, and are considered potentially relevant to the issues on appeal. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain them. The Board also notes that the Veteran’s prior employment at an airport may have included audiology testing. Records from such may indicate an onset of the Vetearn’s hearing loss and/or tinnitus prior to 2008. Thus, VA should request the Veteran to provide all such records, or authorization for VA to request these records. The Board notes that the claims file includes a 2012 nexus opinion from J. Dann (M.S. CCC-A); however, the Board finds that it is not based on an accurate history because it is based on a report of no significant noise exposure post military through occupation or recreation (the audiogram record reflects “little to no” post military significant history); whereas, the evidence of record reflects more than three decades working on a flight line, and recreational use of a dirt bike for one year. In addition, the opinion is based on a reported onset of tinnitus in service, while the clinical records reflect the onset of tinnitus in approximately 2008. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period prior to October 2005 from the Biloxi VA medical center. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for VA to obtain audiological testing results connected to his prior employment at an airport. Make two requests for the authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability and/or tinnitus are causally related to active service. The clinician should consider the pertinent evidence of record to include: a.) the January 1972 audiogram results reflecting abnormal hearing in the left ear at the 4,000 HZ level because his threshold was 25   decibels (The Board finds levels above 20 decibels indicate abnormal hearing); b.) the Veteran’s in-service duties and post-service employment. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Wishard