Citation Nr: 20002174 Decision Date: 01/09/20 Archive Date: 01/09/20 DOCKET NO. 15-28 445 DATE: January 9, 2020 ORDER As new and material evidence has been received, the petition to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. REMAND Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a November 2002 administrative decision, the Veteran was advised that his bilateral hearing loss was denied due to failure to provide requested information. No additional evidence or timely appeal was received within a year of that decision, and it became final. 2. Additional evidence received since the November 2002 administrative decision contains evidence not previously considered and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for bilateral hearing loss. 3. The competent evidence of record does not demonstrate left ear hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes 4. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current bilateral foot disorder that was incurred in or otherwise related to his period of service. 5. The Veteran’s current right eye disorder, to include cataract, did not have onset during his service and is not otherwise related to his period of service. 6. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD in accordance with the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) for any period on appeal. 7. The Veteran’s current acquired psychiatric disorder did not have its onset during active service and is not otherwise related to active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2019). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.385 (2019). 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2019). 4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.306 (2019). 5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309(a) (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States from November 1989 to November 1993. Petition to Reopen Generally, a claim which has been denied in a final unappealed rating decision or a rating decision that was appealed but was not perfected, may not be reopened and allowed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (c), (d)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. An exception to this rule is 38 U.S.C. § 5108, which provides that if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, VA shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. New evidence is defined as existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence previously of record and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). 1. The petition to reopen previously denied claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss The record shows that the Veteran’s representative, on the Veteran’s behalf, submitted an informal claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss in March 2002. In an October 2002 notification letter, VA asked the Veteran to submit a complete VA Form 21-4138 with additional information, and if he failed to response, the claim would not be processed. The RO in a November 2002 administrative decision informed the Veteran that the informal claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied due to failure to provide requested information. The Veteran did not submit additional evidence or a timely appeal of that decision within one year, and that decision became final. Since the denial in November 2002 decision, recent evidentiary submissions have included updated VA treatment records, statements and testimony by the Veteran, and March 2011 and July 2019 VA audiology examination reports. Having reviewed evidentiary submissions since November 2002, the Board finds that new and material evidence to reopen service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disorder has been received. In the Veteran’s lay statements and testimony, the Veteran provide information regarding his in-service noise exposure and complaints of bilateral hearing problems, and the more recent VA examination report contains evidence of right ear hearing loss disability as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. This evidence is new, in that it was not of record at the time of the prior final denial. It is also not cumulative and redundant of evidence already of record, and is material, as it raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Therefore, the appeal for bilateral hearing loss is reopened. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a), (d). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic (reliably diagnosed) in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss The Veteran generally seeks service connection for left ear hearing loss. For VA purposes, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels (dB) or greater, the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz are 26 dB or greater, or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. After a review of all the evidence of record, lay and medical, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence shows the Veteran does not have a current ear hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulatory criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Both the March 2011 and July 2019 VA audiology examination reports do not reflect pure tone thresholds of 26 dB or greater in at least three frequencies or 40 dB or greater in any frequency. In addition, the Veteran’s speech recognition scores were above 94 percent during both VA audiology examination. None of the VA treatment records show evidence of left ear hearing loss has defined VA regulations. In the absence of competent medical evidence of left ear hearing loss disability as defined by the VA regulatory criteria at 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 in this case, service connection for left ear hearing loss must be denied. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder The Veteran generally contends to have a bilateral foot disorder due to service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board finds that the Veteran has a current complaints of bilateral foot pain which causes functional impairment when walking. Notably, the competent lay and medical evidence show that the Veteran has complained of bilateral foot pain with walking for prolonged period. See January 2018 VA podiatry treatment record; January 2018 Board hearing transcript; and May 2019 VA foot examination report. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that a current disability has been shown. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that pain in the absence of a presently-diagnosed condition can cause functional impairment and thereby could constitute a disability for VA purposes). While the Board found that the Veteran has a current bilateral foot disability, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral foot disorder began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran’s service treatment records show he complained of foot problems during his period of service; however, these records show he had been treated for skin conditions involving his feet, including tinea pedis. The Veteran has already been awarded service connection for tinea pedis. See June 2019 rating decision. The Veteran was not diagnosed with a current foot disorder other than skin conditions involving his feet during his period of service. Post-service VA treatment records show the Veteran denied any foot problems in November 2007 and April 2009. The first evidence of foot problems comes in July 2011 when the Veteran presented with complaints generalized foot pain which impacts his ability to walk, but x-ray film was negative. The record shows that the Veteran did not present with complaints chronic foot pain until 2011, which comes 18 years after his separation from active service. Although the presence of symptoms is not the same thing as seeking treatment for symptoms, this long period of time without evidence of seeking treatment has a tendency to weigh against the claim. See Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, there is no medical opinion that links the Veteran’s current bilateral foot pain to his period of service. Rather, both the May 2012 and May 2019 VA examiners concluded that the Veteran’s current foot complaints was less likely than not related to his period of service. Both VA examiners noted that although had foot complaints during service, those complaints were associated with skin conditions involving the Veteran’s feet and not orthopedic conditions. The May 2012 VA examiner noted that the Veteran did not report current foot pain and there was no orthopedic diagnosis or impairment of the foot on clinical evaluation. Similarly, the May 2019 VA examiner found that the Veteran’s current foot complaints were associated with the skin condition and there was no foot condition outside of the skin condition on both feet. In addition, the VA medical providers have also found that the Veteran’s bilateral foot complaints are likely associated with peripheral neuropathy as secondary to his chronic liver disease and not associated with orthopedic impairment involving his feet. See January 2018 VA podiatry consult report. Service connection is not in effect for liver disease. The only evidence of record suggesting a link or nexus between the Veteran’s current foot pain and service comes from the Veteran himself. While the Veteran believes his bilateral foot pain is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, she is not competent to provide a nexus opinion in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of symptoms and a diagnosis provided many years after separation from active duty service. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Notably, while the Veteran now reports bilateral foot complaints for years, he denied any foot pain in 2007 and 2009, and there was no medical documentation of foot pain until 2011 which comes 18 years after separation. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence of record. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against granting service connection for bilateral foot pain, on any theory of entitlement raised by the Veteran or the record. Thus, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for right eye disorder. He contends that his current right eye disorder is a result of his period of service. During his January 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he first noticed vision problems in 1993 at separation. He further testified that during service, he spent most of his time shooting weapons and residues from gun cleaning solution and ammunition would get into his eyes. The Veteran also testified that he first sought VA treatment for his eye complaints in 1994; however, the record shows that attempts to obtain such VA treatment records were unsuccessful. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not show complaints of eye problems or treatment for chronic eye disorder. His June 1989 enlistment examination shows that the Veteran’s vision was evaluated as 20/25 bilaterally; however, his October 1993 separation examination shows the Veteran’s vision was 20/20, bilaterally. In addition, he denied any eye or vision related problems on the associated report of medical history at separation. As noted above, the Veteran has identified VA eye treatment in 1994; however, those record are unavailable. The available treatment records do not show reports of vision problems until June 2010, when the Veteran presented with complaints of difficulty seeing and dry, burning eyes. Clinical evaluation showed evidence of dry eyes and incipient cataract, right eye. He was later assessed with bilateral cataracts and refractive error in July 2012, and he subsequently underwent cataract surgeries for his eyes. Initially, the Board notes that service connection may not be granted for congenital or developmental defects, such as refractive errors, as they are not considered a disease or injury for the purpose of service connection. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (c), 4.9; see also, e.g., Winn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 510, 516 (1996). In the absence of a superimposed disease or injury, service connection may not be granted for refractive errors of the eyes, even if visual acuity decreased in service, as these are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation relating to service connection. Id. Thus, VA regulations specifically prohibit service connection for a refractive error of the eye unless such a defect was subjected to a superimposed disease or injury which created additional disability. See VAOPGCPREC 82-90, 55 Fed. Reg. 45711 (July 18, 1990). While the Veteran’s enlistment examination reflects the Veteran had slight refractive error, there is no evidence of any superimposed disease or injury to the Veteran’s refractive error condition and the Veteran’s visual acuity was evaluated as 20/20, bilaterally, at separation. Absent any probative evidence that the Veteran’s refractive error was subject to a superimposed disease or injury during service, it is not a disability for purposes of VA disability compensation as it is congenital in nature. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (c); see also Winn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 510, 516 (1996); Beno v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 439 (1992). In addition, the record does not contain any evidence that suggests his current right eye disorder, to include cataract, is otherwise related to service. Although the Veteran asserts that his current right eye disorder warrants service connection, his service treatment records do not show any diagnosis of, or treatment for, an eye disability or eye injury while in service. Rather, the first evidence of right eye disorder is not shown until 2010, which comes 17 years after his separation from service. Moreover, at that time, the Veteran’s right eye cataract was characterized as incipient in nature. Although the presence of symptoms is not the same thing as seeking treatment for symptoms, this long period of time without evidence of seeking treatment has a tendency to weigh against the claim. See Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Board is cognizant that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination concerning his right eye disorder, and that formal nexus opinions have not been obtained. In this case, however, the Board finds that such development is not necessary as there is no competent evidence indicating that this disability may be associated with service. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). To the extent that the Veteran has asserted that his right eye disorder is related to service, such a conclusory generalized lay statement alleging nexus between a current disability and service does not meet the standard to warrant a VA examination. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that his current eye disorder is a result of his service. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, the specific eye condition in this case outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this instance, therefore, the Veteran as a lay person has not been shown to be capable of making medical conclusions, especially as to complex medical questions, such as a link between his current eye conditions and his active duty service. Thus, his statements regarding any such link are not competent. In short, the evidence of record does not show that his current eye disorder, to include cataract, was incurred in service or are a result of his period of his period of service. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against granting service connection for right eye disorder, on any theory of entitlement raised by the Veteran or the record. Thus, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 5. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. Service connection for PTSD specifically requires the presence of three particular elements: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD; (2) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and a claimed in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). For the purposes of establishing service connection, medical evidence diagnosing PTSD must be in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a), which refers to the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) as the source of criteria for the diagnosis of claimed psychiatric disorders. Initially, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD in accordance with the DSM for any period on appeal. To the extent that some VA treatment records document that the Veteran has PTSD, the Board affords this less probative value, as these appear to be no more than a recording of the Veteran’s own subjective medical history and fail to provide a full explanation for the assessment of PTSD, which has very specific requirements. In contrast, upon VA examinations in March 2011 and May 2019, the VA examiners concluded that the Veteran’s psychiatric symptoms do not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under DSM criteria and provide explanation in support of this conclusion. The Board afforded more probative value to the VA examiners’ medical conclusions were based on a review of the claims folder, including the VA treatment records, as well as evidence from clinical evaluation. As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the competent evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD in accordance with the DSM for any period on appeal. Accordingly, service connection is not warranted for PTSD, as the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD. Notably, post-service VA treatment records, including the VA psychiatric examinations, document other current acquired psychiatric diagnoses, including depression and alcohol dependence, during the pendency of the Veteran’s claim. Therefore, he has satisfied the first element of a service connection claim, the requirement of a current disability. However, following a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the preponderance of evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service-connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Service treatment records contain a December 1990 service treatment record which shows that the Veteran had reported drinking problems and recent driving under influence (DUI) charge, and he was assessed with early alcohol addiction. He was again assessed with alcohol abuse in April 1991. Post-service medical records continue to show diagnosis of alcohol abuse disorder during the appeal in many VA treatment records, including multiple hospital admissions. The law prohibits the granting of direct service connection for drug or alcohol abuse on the basis of incurrence or aggravation in the line of duty during service. Pub. L. No. 101-508, § 8052, 104 Stat. 1388 (1990); VAOPGCPREC 2-98 (Feb. 10, 1998), 63 Fed. Reg. 31263 (1998). Thus, service connection cannot be granted as a matter of law for an alcohol abuse disorder as directly caused or aggravated by active duty service. However, an alcohol or drug abuse disability can be service connected if it was acquired as secondary to, or as a symptom of, the Veteran’s service-connected disability - assuming that disability, itself, is not the result of his willful misconduct. Moreover, alcohol abuse, unless it is a secondary result of an organic disease or disability, is considered willful misconduct. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.301 (2017); see also Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although the claims file contains numerous VA treatment records discussing the alcohol abuse diagnosis, the record does not show that this disorder is related to any service-connected disability. Rather, the competent medical records suggest that his induced mood disorder and depression are caused by his heavy alcohol use. See March 2010 VA mental health treatment note, as well as March 2011 and May 2019 VA psychiatric examination reports. Moreover, as explained above, service connection is not in effect for any acquired psychiatric disorder. Although the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability is service connected, he has not alleged, and the record does not show, that his current alcohol abuse disorder is caused or otherwise related to these service-connected disabilities. None of the other service treatment record document any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran’s October 1993 separation examination documents a normal psychiatric evaluation, without any psychiatric defect or diagnosis. On the October 1993 medical history report, the Veteran denied any psychiatric symptoms within a concurrent report of medical history, including frequent trouble sleeping, depression or excessive worry, or nervous trouble of any sort. Given the above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against an acquired psychiatric disorder first having its onset during the Veteran’s active service. As such, without probative evidence of an in-service acquired psychiatric disorder, service connection is not warranted on a direct basis. Additionally, there is no probative evidence that an acquired psychiatric disorder diagnosed as psychosis first had onset during active service or within one year of service discharge in November 1993. Therefore, presumptive service connection for psychosis as a chronic disease is also not warranted. Finally, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record does not otherwise document a nexus between the Veteran’s current acquired psychiatric disorder and his active service. While VA treatment records reflect that the Veteran had multiple hospital admissions for alcohol abuse, an October 2007 VA initial treatment record shows that the Veteran reported history of alcohol abuse as well as depressed mood following the death of his wife from a motor vehicle accident (MVA) in 2005. Subsequent VA medical records also reflect that the Veteran’s complaints of depression were associated with the death of his wife in 2005. See March 2009 VA treatment records. The March 2011 VA examination report shows that the Veteran had reported service in Kuwait for 30 days in 1993, and he reported that he had sustained “bad abuse on the body physically” and had to get used to shooting at things and others. The Veteran reported that after service he had difficulty with alcohol use, and he further reported that he had been devastated following the death of his wife from MVA in 2005. Based on clinical evaluation, the VA examiner concluded that the Veteran’s symptoms did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under DSM-IV criteria; however, the examiner diagnosed alcohol dependence and induced mood disorder. The VA examiner concluded that his current conditions were less likely than not related to military service and his claimed military stressors. The VA examiner noted that Veteran had reported PTSD stressors while on deployment in Kuwait, but he had been unable to describe a single index traumatic event. Instead, the Veteran only provided vague description of typical stressors commonly found in combat zones. The VA examiner found that the Veteran’s mental health difficulties developed in the context of complicated grief surround the loss of his wife and alcoholism. Similarly, the May 2019 VA examination report shows that the Veteran’s symptomatology did not support a diagnosis of PTSD under DSM-V criteria, and the Veteran had a current diagnosis of alcohol dependence, severe, in remission. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran reported he visited the chaplain a few times during service, but he did not otherwise seek mental health treatment until years after service. He also reported that shortly after discharge, he had been arrested for DUI and referred for a mandatory VA substance abuse program, and he later had hospital admissions for substance abuse treatment with suicidal ideation in 2009. The VA examiner found that the Veteran’s reported stressor event during his Kuwait deployment lacked in details and he failed to describe an index traumatic event. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran only talked about generalized problems found in combat deployment, which was insufficient to support the criterion for traumatic stressor needed for a diagnosis of PTSD. Instead, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran revealed to have significant unresolved grief over death of his wife. In the associated VA medical opinion report, the May 2019 VA examiner concluded that the Veteran’s claimed acquired psychiatric disorder was less likely than incurred in or result of period of service. The rational in support of this conclusion was that although the Veteran reported being deployed to an active war zone, he reported that “it was winding down” during his short tenure in Kuwait. He was unable to provide a specific instance of traumatic experience during his deployment. Instead, the Veteran’s current mental health symptoms were related his distress over the death of his wife in 2005. The Board affords the VA examiners’ negative nexus opinions great probative value, as they were based upon an interview of the Veteran, psychiatric evaluation, and review of the claims file. Additionally, there is no conflicting positive medical nexus opinion of record upon which to weigh against these medical opinions. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s lay statements of record regarding his claimed psychiatric disorder. During the January 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified his current psychiatric disorder was associated with traumatic experiences while he was stationed in Kuwait. He reported that although he had not been diagnosed with depression until years after service, he stated that his symptoms had an onset in 1993 but he did not seek prior treatment because he was unaware it was available. That being said, he acknowledged that he had long history of alcohol abuse problems and receiving VA substance abuse treatment. To the extent that the Veteran now asserts that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder that had its onset during his active service, the Board affords such statements little probative value given their inconsistency with the additional evidence of record, including multiple examinations, which document normal psychiatric evaluations, as well as multiple reports of medical history, which contain the Veteran’s own contemporaneous denials of psychiatric symptoms, which the Board has no reason to doubt his credible reports during active service. Moreover, to the extent that the Veteran asserts that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder that is otherwise related to active service, such statements are of no probative value, given the Veteran’s lack of the specialized medical expertise or psychiatric training required to render a nexus opinion, which links a complex psychiatric condition to active service. Given the above, the Board finds that preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. There is no probative evidence that the Veteran’s claimed acquired psychiatric disability had onset during active service, and no probative evidence that a current psychiatric disorder is otherwise related to active service. Thus, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss. He contends that he has hearing problems as a result of his exposure to loud noises during his period of service. His service records show he was assigned to an infantry until which has a high probability of exposure to hazardous noise, and the Board concedes his exposure to loud noises during his period of service as consistent with his military service. The July 2019 VA audiology examination report shows the Veteran’s right ear speech recognition score was 94 percent, which demonstrates that the Veteran has right ear hearing disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The VA examiner concluded it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss was caused by or result of military service. However, the VA’s examiners rational appears to be based on an inaccurate review of the medical records and is considered inadequate. In this regard, the 2019 VA examiner stated that a review of the service treatment records show the Veteran had hearing within normal limits at induction and at separation with no significant shift in hearing between exams. While the Veteran’s service treatment records do not show right ear hearing loss disability, it does show significant decrease in hearing acuity in the right ear with a decline of 30 decibels at 1,000 Hertz, 10 decibels at 2,000 and 4, 000, and 15 decibels at 3,000 Hertz from the 1989 to 1993 audiometric pure tone thresholds. A remand is needed to obtain a new VA medical opinion that considers the shift in pure tone thresholds during the Veteran’s period of service on whether the Veteran’s current right ear hearing loss disability is result of his period of service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to in-service noise exposure, with consideration of shift in pure tone thresholds from 1989 to 1993. K. J. ALIBRANDO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Murray, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.