Citation Nr: 20026083 Decision Date: 04/15/20 Archive Date: 04/15/20 DOCKET NO. 19-33 065 DATE: April 15, 2020 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the U.S. Army from April 1960 to April 1962 and from July 1962 to June 1965. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). First, remand is necessary to obtain VA treatment records. VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2017). This includes making as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency, including VA medical records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992).   Here, during a June 1999 VA examination, the Veteran reported medical treatment at the Little Rock VA Medical Center (VAMC) in the 1970s. The claims file does not contain records from the Little Rock VAMC or any medical records from the time of the Veteran’s separation from service until approximately the late 1990s. VA appears to have made no effort to obtain these records. Accordingly, remand is required. Second, remand is required to obtain an adequate VA etiological opinion. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). When a Veteran has provided competent lay statements of an in-service injury, the examiner must consider and address them when developing their rationale. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007) (holding that when the Veteran has provided lay testimony of an in-service injury, an examiner cannot ignore that lay evidence and base his or her opinion that there is no relationship to service on the absence of in-service corroborating medical records). In June 2018, a VA audiological examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to service. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran had passed the Whisper Voice Test in both ears at entrance, and he did not experience any significant threshold shifts indicating a decrease in hearing between hearing examinations he had in 1962 and 1965. The Board finds this opinion inadequate. In a December 2005 VA record, the Veteran reported chronic hearing loss in his left ear since he was 28-years old. This appears to be around the same time he left service. The examiner failed to address this assertion of continuity of symptomatology. Accordingly, remand is required.   The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate VAMCs, including but not limited to Little Rock VAMC, to include those dated since the Veteran’s separation from active service in June 1965, and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment, digital and physical. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. 2. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the bilateral hearing loss from a VA examiner. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. If an examination is deemed necessary, one must be provided. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. (a.) The examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the bilateral hearing loss had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active service. (b.) The examiner must specifically address the following: 1) the Veteran’s assertion of hearing loss symptoms since approximately 1965 or right around the time he was discharged from active service; 2) the Veteran’s conceded in-service noise exposure due to his MOS as a Field Communications Operator; and 3) and the Veteran’s post-service noise exposure. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Rogos 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.