Citation Nr: 21065312 Decision Date: 10/25/21 Archive Date: 10/25/21 DOCKET NO. 14-21 007 DATE: October 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1969 to September 1971. This matter come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RP) in Denver, Colorado. In March 2017, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Board denied this claim in a May 2020 decision. The Veteran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In May 2021, the involved parties filed a Joint Motion to Vacate and Remand (Joint Motion), asking the Court to vacate the Board's May 2020 decision that denied the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. By a May 2021 Order, the Court granted the Joint Motion and remanded the matter to the Board for action consistent with the directives of the Joint Motion. This claim is currently before the Board. REASONS FOR REMAND As determined in the Joint Motion, the Board did not adequately discuss whether the RO substantially complied with February 2018 remand directives. Specifically, the parties agreed that the Board failed to discuss whether a VA examiner correctly converted audiometric results as directed in the remand. In the February 2018 remand, the Board directed the VA examiner to assume that the Veteran's pre-induction audiometric results were shown in American Standards Association (ASA) standards and, thus, they should be converted to International Standards Organization-American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI) standards. This conversation was only supposed to occur when rendering an opinion as to whether the Veteran's pre-existing bilateral hearing loss was aggravated beyond its natural course during his active duty. With respect to the opinion as to in-service incurrence, the VA examiner was specifically directed to assume that the audiometric results obtained during Veteran's pre-induction and separation examinations had already been converted and, thus, no conversion was required. The May 2018 VA examiner simply stated that "no conversion was required." The examiner's rationale pertains to the Veteran having zero decibel puretone thresholds (undifferentiated between pre-induction and separation), which is inaccurate with respect to the Veteran's pre-induction audiometric results. As such, a remand is warranted in order to obtain a supplemental opinion or provide the Veteran with another VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a supplemental opinion regarding the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran's electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner and the examiner must specify in the report that it was contemporaneously reviewed. The examiner should then provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's pre-existing bilateral hearing loss was aggravated beyond its natural course during his active duty. For purposes of this question only, the examiner is asked to assume that the Veteran's pre-induction audiometric results are shown in American Standards Association standards (and, thus, must be converted to International Standards Organization -American National Standards Institute standard before an opinion can be provided). The examiner is asked to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss was incurred in or due to his active duty. For purposes of this question only, the examiner is asked to assume that the pre-induction and separation audiological results are shown in International Standards Organization -American National Standards Institute standard (and, thus, no conversion is required). All rendered opinions must be accompanied by a thorough rationale. If the examiner determines that another VA examination is required, one must be provided to the Veteran. 2. Re-adjudicate the issue and, if any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative. After they have had an opportunity to respond, remit the appeal to the Board for further appellate review. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sean G. Pflugner, 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.