Citation Nr: 20037574 Decision Date: 06/02/20 Archive Date: 06/02/20 DOCKET NO. 19-13 804 DATE: June 2, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1956 to July 1958. This matter comes on appeal before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2018 rating decision, of which the Veteran was notified of in April 2018, of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran waived a hearing before the Board in his April 2019 substantive appeal, via a VA Form 9. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss was caused by hazardous noise in service at the firing range in basic training, noise from driving 3.5 ton and 2.5 ton trucks in Korea, or a combination of the two noise exposures. The Veteran also contends that because he was not exposed to hazardous noise in his post-service employment as a tax assessor and tax collector, his hearing loss should be attributed to his military service. See April 2018 letter. The Veteran’s service treatment records are unavailable because they were destroyed by a 1973 fire at the National Archives and Records Administration. See December 2017 VCAA letter and March 2018 rating decision. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in March 2018. The VA examination diagnosed the Veteran with sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear and mixed hearing loss in the left ear. The examiner noted there were no service treatment records associated with the claims file because they were destroyed in the 1973 fire. According to the Veteran’s DD 214, the Veteran’s military occupational specialty was a clerk typist, which had a low probability of noise exposure. Therefore, the examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the bilateral hearing loss was related to service. The March 2018 VA examiner impermissibly based the negative nexus on a lack of symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment for hearing loss in service. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Furthermore, the examiner did not address the Veteran’s contentions that, despite being classified as a clerk-typist on his DD Form 214, he was assigned to drive a 3.5-ton truck and occasionally assigned to drive a 2.5-ton truck in Korea. Indeed, the Veteran asserted he does not recall ever seeing a typewriter in service. The examiner also did not address the Veteran’s contention that he was exposed to hazardous noise on the firing range in basic training, or his assertion that he had no post-service hazardous noise exposure. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249 (2020). The March 2018 VA medical opinion in its current form in not adequate to decide the claim. A remand is warranted to obtain a VA addendum opinion before the claim can be adjudicated. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding pertinent VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, obtain an addendum medical opinion from an appropriate clinician as to the nature and etiology of the bilateral hearing loss disability. All the Veteran’s contentions should be considered and addressed. After a review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to: Clarify, with supportive rationale, whether the Veteran’s hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to his active service. *In doing so, the examiner is asked to specifically address: (a) The Veteran’s contentions that despite being classified as a clerk-typist on his DD Form 214, he was assigned to drive a 3.5-ton truck and occasionally assigned to drive a 2.5-ton truck in Korea. (b) The Veteran’s contention that he was exposed to hazardous noise on the firing range in basic training, and (c) The Veteran’s assertion that he had no post-service hazardous noise exposure. (Continued on the next page)   *The examiner is reminded that a negative nexus opinion cannot be solely based on a lack of symptoms, diagnosis or treatment of bilateral hearing loss during service. 3. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Harper, Associate 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.