Citation Nr: 21063134 Decision Date: 10/13/21 Archive Date: 10/13/21 DOCKET NO. 15-06 763 DATE: October 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from November 1955 to February 1960. In May 2018, the Veteran was provided a hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a transcript of the proceeding is of record. Most recently, a June 2020 Board decision denied the Veteran's claim for service connection. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court vacated and remanded the June 2020 Board decision. The Court found that the Board did not provide adequate Reasons and Bases. Specifically, the Court found that the evidence of record did not show whether the Veteran's in-service audiogram was converted from ASA units to ISO/ANSI units, and thus, the Board erred when it relied on the December 2019 VA opinion, which did not note whether the findings were based upon the appropriate decibel units. Entitlement to Service Connection: Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his active duty service. In accordance with the Court's July 2021 Order, the Board finds that a remand is required. The Veteran's separation audiological evaluation was performed in January 1960, at which time auditory thresholds were recorded. However, it is unclear whether such thresholds were recorded using American Standards Association (ASA) units or International Standards Organization-American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI) units. As it relates to VA examinations and VA records, audiological reports were not routinely converted to ISO-ANSI results from ASA units until the end of 1975 because the regulatory standard for evaluating hearing loss was not changed to require ISO-ANSI units until September 9, 1975. Thus, in accordance with VA policy, the Board finds that a remand is required in order to retrieve an addendum opinion where the Veteran's separation audiological evaluation is considered under both standards, relying on the unit measurements most favorable to the Veteran's appeal. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Send the claims file to the examiner who provided the December 2019 VA opinion to determine the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. If the December 2019 examiner is unavailable, the claims file should be sent to an appropriate examiner for the requested opinion. If the examiner finds that an opinion cannot be provided without examination of the Veteran, then such examination should be scheduled. The record and a copy of this Remand must be made available to the examiner. Following a review of the entire record, the Veteran's competent lay statements, as well as the Veteran's report regarding the onset and progression of his current symptomatology, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, his active duty service. Please ensure consideration is given to the Veteran's separation examination data under both the ASA and ISO-ANSI standards, using whichever is more beneficial to the Veteran in the analysis. In offering any opinion, the examiner must consider the full record, to include the lay statements regarding in-service incurrence, and the opinion should reflect such consideration. If the examiner cites to noise exposure outside the Veteran's military experience when providing an opinion, such civilian noise exposure should be documented. A clearly stated rationale for any opinion offered should be provided and must not be based solely on the lack of any in-service records or the Veteran having normal hearing at separation. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resort to speculation, he or she should explain whether the inability is due to the limits of the examiner's medical knowledge, medical knowledge in general or there is evidence that, if obtained, would permit the opinion to be provided. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Negron, 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.