Citation Nr: 20021972 Decision Date: 03/30/20 Archive Date: 03/30/20 DOCKET NO. 19-28 225 DATE: March 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Whether the Veteran’s character of discharge from service for the period of December 11, 1985 to November 16, 1990, is a bar to VA benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from October 1980 to November 1990; the Veteran’s period of service from December 11, 1985 through November 16, 1990 has been found by VA to be a bar to VA benefits in a February 2018 VA administrative decision. The Veteran’s service prior to December 11, 1985, however, is considered honorable for VA benefits purposes. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran contends that he was a boiler technician on several military vessels during his period of service and that he was exposed to loud noise as a result of such service. The Veteran’s Form DD-214 indicates that his military occupational specialty was as an automatic combustion control console operator. Based on the statements and evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran had in-service exposure to loud noise. The evidence also demonstrates that the Veteran is shown to have tinnitus and a hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 during the appeal period. Accordingly, this case turns on the nexus to service. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in May 2018, although the VA examiner did not offer an opinion as to the hearing loss or tinnitus until October 2018. At that time, with regards to the Veteran’s hearing loss, she incorrectly noted that the Veteran had mild hearing loss on entrance into military service and that he had mild hearing loss throughout his periods of service; she also noted that the Veteran had post-service noise exposure to heavy machinery. She also noted that he was treated for otitis externa during service. She concluded that the Veteran’s hearing loss was “unlikely” caused by otitis externa and that it was “less likely” that his hearing loss was caused by noise exposure in his first period of service. Likewise, regarding tinnitus, she concluded that because the Veteran could not specify a date of onset, it was less likely than not related to military noise exposure; rather, she indicated that it was likely due to his hearing loss. She provided no rationale for these opinions. See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467 (1993); Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998) (the failure of the physician to provide a basis for his/her opinion affects the weight or credibility of the evidence). In light of the inaccuracy of the facts noted above and the examiner’s lack of a rationale for the conclusions reached, the Board finds the opinions to be inadequate. A remand is therefore necessary in order to obtain another adequate VA examination and medical opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171, 179 (2005) (a VA examination must be based on an accurate factual premise). On remand, the Board also finds that any outstanding VA treatment records should also be obtained. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b), (c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b); see also Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Finally, with regards to the character of discharge claim, as noted above, VA determined that period of service was a bar to VA benefits in a February 2018 administrative decision. The Veteran disagreed with that determination in a March 2018 Notice of Disagreement. As of yet, VA has not issued the Veteran a statement of the case as to this issue. Accordingly, that issue is remanded at this time in order for such to be accomplished. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999); see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(c). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Furnish to the Veteran and his representative a statement of the case with regard to the claims of whether the Veteran’s character of discharge from service for the period of December 11, 1985 to November 16, 1990, is a bar to VA benefits. The issue should be returned to the Board only if a timely substantive appeal is received. 2. Obtain any and all VA treatment records and associate those documents with the claims file. 3. Ensure that the Veteran is scheduled for a VA audiology examination with an examiner who has not previously participated in this case, if possible. The claims folder must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. All tests deemed necessary should be conducted and the results reported in detail. The examiner should obtain information regarding the Veteran’s noise exposure during and after military service. Following audiometric testing, the examiner should indicate whether the Veteran has any hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, bilaterally. Then, the examiner should opine whether any bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus found at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) began in or is otherwise related to military service, to include any noise exposure as a result of his service including noise related to his job as an automatic combustion control console operator aboard naval vessels. Specifically, the examiner needs to address whether the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his noise exposure during military service, regardless of whether such was noted until many years after military service. The examiner is reminded that the lack of any contemporaneous evidence in service of hearing loss or tinnitus in the service records is not an adequate rationale for a negative opinion. Finally, the examiner should discuss in detail the Veteran’s statements regarding onset of symptomatology and continuity of symptomatology since discharge from service, as well as any other pertinent evidence, as appropriate. All findings should be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Peters, Senior 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.