Citation Nr: 19129663 Decision Date: 04/16/19 Archive Date: 04/16/19 DOCKET NO. 18-05 769 DATE: April 16, 2019 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. REMANDED Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1984 to October 1986 in the United States Army. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection VA disability compensation is provided for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. This is referred to as “service connection.” 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In addition, regulations provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, in order to show a service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). Impaired hearing is considered a disability for VA purposes when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Hearing loss for VA purposes was documented on VA examination in November 2017. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) do not document hearing loss. However, she reports that she worked in an underground facility in Okinawa as an administrative specialist during service, as depicted on her service separation document, DD Form 214 and personnel records. At least twice a week at unexpected intervals, the facility employed typhoon and air raid drills, commenced by the sounding of a loud alarm located above her desk. She reports that following these drills, she would be unable to hear for 20 to 30 minutes. In support of this in-service incurrence of acoustic trauma, she submitted the May 2017 statement of her husband, to whom she was married for the duration of her service. He stated that the Veteran would frequently come home complaining of a headache because of a loud alarm sounding above her desk. He noticed that her ability to hear had progressively declined since that time. Thus, while service treatment records do not specifically document hearing loss, the Board resolves any doubt in the Veteran’s favor as to whether she was exposed to acoustic trauma during military service. Her reports are consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of her service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Her contentions are corroborated by the report of her husband. Additionally, the RO previously acknowledged her in-service noise exposure resulting from the air raid siren at her work site. See Statement of the Case. On the matter of etiology, the record contains the opinions of the November 2017 VA examiner, and the Veteran’s private physician, Dr. R. On VA examination in November 2017, the examiner reviewed the claims file and examined the Veteran. She noted the in-service noise exposure and an absence of post-service occupational or recreational exposure. However, she concluded that the Veteran’s current hearing loss was not at least as likely as not caused by military service. As rationale, she stated that the STRs did not depict a significant positive shift in hearing thresholds for either ear. As such, according to medical literature, there was no basis to conclude that the current hearing loss was due to noise exposure in service. In June 2017 and January 2018 reports, Dr. R. discussed the in-service noise exposure during the 1980s, and lack of post-service occupational or recreational acoustic trauma. He opined that the configuration of the Veteran’s audiometric testing results fit a noise-induced pattern. As such, it was as likely as not that the current hearing loss was related to military service. He stated, “from a medical standpoint, there is no way to argue that her hearing loss was not worsened/accelerated by her repeated noise trauma exposures while in military service.” In considering the evidence under the laws and regulations as set forth above, and resolving all reasonable doubt in her favor, the Board concludes that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Dr. R. based his conclusion on an examination of pertinent facts in the claims file and current diagnostic findings. He provided a rationale for the opinion provided. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123 (2007). The opinion of the November 2017 VA examiner provides a contrasting, and well-reasoned viewpoint. On this record, the evidence is in equipoise in showing that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to service. VA's duty to assist is not a license for a "fishing expedition," and further development is not necessary to resolve the claim. Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 470, 472 (1992). In resolving any doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND In a March 2018 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include PTSD. In April 2018, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with that decision. While these actions took place one year ago, a review of the record and VA’s internal systems shows that the RO has not taken any action and is not processing the matter. The claim must thus be remanded for the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC). See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Issue the Veteran a SOC on the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include PTSD. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Smith, Counsel