Citation Nr: 20006468 Decision Date: 01/27/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 16-23 595 DATE: January 27, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from August 1967 to May 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. He testified at a hearing before the undersigned in December 2019. The Veteran contends his current hearing loss is related to noise exposure without ear protection in service. He also stated that he experienced ringing in his ears after firing weapons on active duty. See May 2015 Statement in Support of Claim. He was unable to recall the date he first noticed hearing loss. See December 2019 hearing transcript. Service personnel records show the Veteran participated in a defense position against Viet Cong Forces while stationed in Vietnam in February 1968. He was also awarded the Vietnam Campaign Medal with device and the Rifle Marksmanship Badge. Based on the foregoing, his exposure to in-service exposure to excessive noise is established. The Veteran underwent a VA audiological evaluation in October 2015 and an addendum opinion was obtained in February 2017. The VA examiners opined it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current hearing loss was related to service. The examiners based their opinions, in part, on a finding that the Veteran worked in a warehouse in service. They noted he participated in weapons training but found that he was not exposed to hazardous noise levels in service capable of causing permanent hearing loss. They also noted that the Veteran had 40 years of post-service noise exposure as a brick/cement worker. However, the examiners did not address the Veteran’s combat noise exposure or his contentions that he did not wear hearing protection in service but wore it consistently after service. Where VA provides a veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Here, remand is required for an addendum medical opinion. In this regard, a lack of in-service evidence showing a veteran exhibited hearing loss is not fatal to his claim. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The electronic claims file and a copy of this Remand must be made available to the reviewing examiner. After careful review of the record, the examiner should provide the following opinion: Is it at least as likely as not that any current hearing loss is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including noise exposure therein? The examiner should consider the Veteran’s contentions documented in the record regarding hearing protection used after service, but not during service. If the requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should explain whether the inability to provide the opinion is due to the limits of the examiner’s medical knowledge, the limits of medical knowledge in general, or there is additional evidence that would permit the opinion to be provided. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A discussion of the complete rationale for all opinions expressed should be included in the examination report, to include reference to pertinent evidence where appropriate. Additionally, if the examiner determines that a VA examination is necessary to provide the requested opinion, such should be scheduled. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. R. Fletcher, 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.