Citation Nr: 20042355 Decision Date: 06/23/20 Archive Date: 06/23/20 DOCKET NO. 16-61 284 DATE: June 23, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1955 to June 1959, with service in the Army National Guard from June 1976 to December 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2018, the Board remanded this appeal for further development, including obtaining a medical opinion. The requested opinion was obtained, and the case is back before the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran maintains that his hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his field artillery training in the Army National Guard. In support of his claim, the Veteran included a statement from a fellow National Guardsman describing the Veteran’s noise exposure and the circumstances of his service. So far, the Veteran has reported to two VA Examinations: one in April 2012 and another in September 2019. Regrettably, neither opinion addressed noise exposure from the Veteran’s active duty for training. As such, remand is necessary to consider whether the Veteran’s active duty for training with the Army National Guard caused his hearing loss or tinnitus. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange for an appropriate health care provider to review the Veteran’s claim file and provide an opinion as to: (a.) whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus had their clinical onset during service or are due to an event or incident of the Veteran’s period of active service, including the Veteran’s active duty for training with the Army National Guard. (b.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner’s attention is drawn to the Veteran’s December 2016 Correspondence, SFC Lambrecht’s December 2016 Buddy Letter, and the Veteran’s September 1995 Report of Medical Examination hearing acuity results. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinion. If there is a medical reason to doubt the veracity of these statements, the examiner should explain why the Veteran’s recollection is inconsistent with principles of medical science and/or the evidence in this case. If the reviewing health care provider finds that physical examination of the Veteran and/or diagnostic testing is necessary, such should be accomplished. A clear rationale for all opinions must be provided and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. 2. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate and giving the Veteran full opportunity to supplement the record, adjudicate the Veteran’s pending claim in light of any additional evidence added to the record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded the applicable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Canedy, 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.