Citation Nr: 21062249 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 17-39 634 DATE: October 6, 2021 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 in the United States Army from January 1971 to January 1974. The Board finds that with regards to both the Veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus, the most recent VA examination afforded to the Veteran in June 2016 to be inadequate, and a remand is required. The Board notes that the VA's statutory duty to assist the Veteran includes the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous examination so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Assistance by VA includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). When the medical evidence is inadequate, as it is here, VA must supplement the record by seeking an advisory opinion or ordering another medical examination. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 213 (1992). Therefore, the Board finds that, as the June 2016 VA examination is found to be inadequate, a remand is necessary for the VA to fulfil its duty to the Veteran. The Board finds that the June 2016 VA examiner's negative nexus for the bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus claims was exclusively based on the finding that there were no evidence of either hearing loss or tinnitus recorded on the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs), to include upon separation from service. The Board finds that such singular rationale for finding against the Veteran's claims to be inadequate, especially in light of the Veteran's credible lay reports of his acoustic trauma during his active service as part of his military occupational specialty (MOS) working on aircrafts. To this end, the Veteran has reported continuous exposure to loud engine noise for nearly the entirety of his active service; such exposure is confirmed by his MOS, listed on his DD-214 as Aircraft Electrician. As such, the Board must find that the rationale provided to be inadequate, as it fails to show explicit consideration of the Veteran's lay contentions of exposure during service. Additionally, the Board also finds that the VA examiner noted CNT or "cannot test" for all the objective test results recorded on the Veteran's hearing examination; however, no explanation is provided on the report as why such hearing test could not be administered at the time. Therefore, another examination is required also to properly provide the Veteran with a hearing examination or provide rationale as to why such an examination is improper or impermissible. Additionally, with regard to the claim for service connection tinnitus, the Board finds that claim is inextricably intertwined with the claim for hearing loss on remand, as those potential treatment records may yield additional information regarding such condition. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Therefore, this claim must be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner should first determine whether the Veteran has a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes; and if an examination with regards to the objective criteria for hearing loss cannot be conducted, the examiner must explicitly explain why such test cannot be conducted. Then, the examiner should answer the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's claimed bilateral hearing loss began in or was otherwise caused by the Veteran's active military service? A full rationale, to include explicit consideration of the Veteran's lay statements regarding inservice noise exposure must be address in any rationale or finding. Additionally, the examiner must also opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's claimed tinnitus began in or was otherwise caused by the Veteran's active military service. The rationale for the opinion must be provided. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Ziheng Zhu, 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.