Citation Nr: 21001931 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 20-06 097 DATE: January 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for thyroid disease, to include as due to radioactive material exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1963 to October 1965. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher disability rating because his bilateral hearing loss is more severe than the level contemplated by his current disability rating. A review of the record indicates that there are outstanding relevant VA treatment records. In September 2019, the Veteran was seen for re-evaluation of his hearing. See September 2019 VA Audiology Note. The record indicates that puretone testing was conducted; however, the audiological report is not associated with the record. On remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should associate all audiological testing reports, including the September 3, 2019 report, that are not already a part of the claims file. 2. Entitlement to service connection for thyroid disease, to include as due to radioactive material exposure, is remanded. The Veteran asserts that while stationed in Germany in 1964 and 1965, he transported radioactive material between two bases on several occaisions. See July 2017 Radiation Risk Activity Information Sheet. The Veteran further asserts that he developed a thyroid disability as a result of this exposure. The record does not contain sufficient evidence addressing the Veteran’s asserted radiation exposure. Medical records show the Veteran has been diagnosed with hypothyroidism. See December 2019 VA Primary Care Physician Note. While hypothyroidism is not listed as a radiogenic disease under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(2), the Veteran has referenced treatise evidence suggesting that thyroid disease could possibly be radiogenic in origin. See December 2020 Appellate Brief. Accordingly, VA should take all steps necessary to attempt to verify the Veteran’s claim of radation expsoure, to include, developing the Veteran’s claim as directed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(4) (noting that if a claim is based on a disease other than one of those listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, VA shall nevertheless consider the claim under the provisions of this section provided that the claimant has cited or submitted competent scientific or medical evidence that the claimed condition is a radiogenic disease). All steps undertaken by the agency of original jurisidiction (AOJ) should be documented in the claims file. Additionally, on remand, the Veteran should be given a chance to identify any relevant private treatment records not already associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any private treatment records not already associated with the claims file and complete a VA Form 21-4142 for each physician/facility identified. All appropriate action should be taken to obtain identified records. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from June 2020 to the present. Also, associate with the claims file all VA puretone testing reports not currently of record, to specifically include test results obtained at a September 3, 2019 VA Audiological Clinic examination. 3. Review the Veteran’s July 2017 Radiation Risk Activity Worksheet, and take all appropriate steps to verify occupational exposure to ionizing radiation, based on Veteran’s assertion that he was exposed to radiation from transporting radioactive material from Wildflecken, Germany in 1964 and 1965. In particular, appropriate records repositories should be contacted to request copies of any additional service records, to include any Record of Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation (DD Form 1141). If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. 4. After the foregoing development has been completed, develop the appellant’s claim as necessary in accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. (Continued on Next Page) 5. Then readjudicate the appeal, if the benefit sought is denied, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Bristow Williams, 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.