Citation Nr: 21063497 Decision Date: 10/14/21 Archive Date: 10/14/21 DOCKET NO. 19-04 137 DATE: October 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from June 1965 to January 1969. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a February 2018 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for hearing loss. In October 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. In January 2018, the Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination to assess the nature and etiology of his claimed hearing loss. Following an examination, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with sensorineural hearing loss in the range of 500 to 4000 Hertz in both ears. The examiner then opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not the result of an event in military service. In reaching this determination, the examiner indicated that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) documented that the Veteran had normal hearing at entrance and separation, and did not demonstrate a significant change in hearing sensitivity. See January 2018 VA Examination. Despite the findings noted above, the Board finds that the January 2018 VA examination is insufficient for rating purposes. Notably, during the October 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was exposed to loud noises while working as a firefighter on the flight line. Specifically, he indicated that he patrolled the ramp and therefore was around running engines all the time. Additionally, the Veteran held that, while he was exposed to some noise at his job following service, he was not exposed to any recreational noise exposure. Additionally, in March 2018, the Veteran submitted an article from the VA Office of Research and Development entitled, "Exposure to jet fuel, not just noise, contributes to hearing problems." The article essentially contends that jet fuel, even at subtoxic levels, may affect the brain and result in auditory processing dysfunctions. See Correspondence received March 2018. As the January 2018 VA examiner did not consider or discuss the Veteran's in-service noise exposure, or have an opportunity to address the article indicating that jet fuel may contribute to auditory processing dysfunctions, the Board finds the January 2018 VA examination insufficient for rating purposes. Accordingly, remand is warranted to obtain a new VA medical opinion consistent with the directives herein. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a VA medical opinion from an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The claims folder (including a copy of this remand) must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss had its onset in, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active duty service. In rendering the above opinion, the examiner is instructed to consider and discuss: i. the Veteran's October 2021 hearing testimony, wherein he indicated that he was exposed to hazardous noise while working as a firefighter on the flight line, and ii. the article submitted in March 2018 from the VA Office of Research and Development, which indicates that exposure to jet fuel may lead to auditory processing dysfunctions. (Continued on the next page) The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Talton, John H. 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.