Citation Nr: 21000594 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 15-24 965 DATE: January 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Appellant’s DD-214 reflects service dates from October 1979 to February 1980 for relief from ADT and a release from IADT under the Reserve Enlistment Program in the Army/Army Reserves. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2018, the Appellant testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge of the Board. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. In March 2019, the Board remanded the appeal to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. The appeal has now returned to the Board for review. The Veterans Law Judge who held the hearing has since retired. In an October 2020 correspondence, the Appellant was given the opportunity to request another hearing and was notified that if he did not provide a response in 30 days, it would be assumed that he did not want another hearing. The Appellant did not respond to the letter, and the Board will therefore proceed. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Appellant contends that he experienced acoustic trauma while on Inactive Duty Training (INACDUTRA), in the Army Reserve during a four-year period from October 1979 to 1980. See August 2018 Board Hearing transcript. The Board finds that the RO has not substantially complied with the Board’s prior remand directives and this matter must be remanded for additional development before a decision may be made on the merits. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Initially, the Board notes that the Appellant’s DD-214 for October 1979 to February 1980 indicates that he was released from ADT with the Army/Army Reserve and the reason for separation is described as “[r]elief from ADT.” However, the narrative reason for separation is noted as “[r]elease from IADT, under the Reserve Enlistment Program upon completion of MOS, (Military Occupation Specialties) training and a minimum of 12 weeks IADT. The DD-214 further reflects that the Appellant had net active service of three months and three days. The Appellant’s service treatment records contain an August 1979 Army Reserves enlistment examination with an audiogram. There is no additional enlistment examination of record. The record contains a retirement points summary; however, this does not adequately verify all specific periods of the Appellant’s period of active service, including ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA. The March 2019 Board Remand instructed the RO to prepare a memorandum documenting the specific dates of the Appellant’s periods of active duty, ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA and to associate the summary with the Appellant’s claims file. Such memorandum was to be provided to the VA examiner, so he or she could opine as to whether it is as likely as not that any of the Appellant’s bilateral hearing loss disability had its onset in service or is otherwise etiologically related to service, to include periods of ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA. The file does not reflect that the RO prepared such a memorandum. Because of the deficiencies detailed above, the Board finds that the October 2019 VA examination is inadequate; a remand of the appeal is therefore also necessary in order to obtain an adequate medical opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); see also Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171, 179 (2005) (a VA examination must be based on an accurate factual premise). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the Records Management Center (RMC), the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) and/or any other appropriate source to verify the exact beginning and ending dates of each period of active duty, ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA. The AOJ must prepare a memorandum documenting the specific dates of the Appellant’s periods of service, include periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. The summary must be associated with the claims file. A report of retirement points earned will not satisfy this directive. 2. Inform the Appellant and his representative of the criteria to establish veteran status, qualifying active service, and service connection based on any period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA, as well as the types of evidence he may submit to substantiate his claim based on those types of service. 3. Schedule the Appellant for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current bilateral hearing loss disability. All indicated tests and studies should be completed. The examiner must be provided with the specific dates of the Appellant’s periods of service, including ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. Based on examination of the Appellant, review of the claims file, and consideration of the lay testimony pertaining to in-service and post-service symptoms, the examiner must address the following: a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that any bilateral hearing loss disability had its onset inservice or is otherwise etiologically related to his military service, to include periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. Rationale must be provided for the opinion proffered. b.) Whether clear and unmistakable evidence establishes a right or left hearing loss disability existed prior to service, and, if so, whether clear and unmistakable evidence establishes that any such right or left pre-existing hearing loss disability was not aggravated by service. Any such clear and unmistakable evidence must be identified. Rationale must be provided for the opinion proffered. D. Smart Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. E. Leary, Associate Attorney 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.