Citation Nr: A21017281 Decision Date: 10/26/21 Archive Date: 10/26/21 DOCKET NO. 210908-184463 DATE: October 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1954 to August 1957. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2021 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The rating decision constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In a September 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is related to his in-service exposure to acoustic trauma. In July 2021, the AOJ began the process of obtaining a VA audiological evaluation and etiology opinion for the claimed tinnitus. The Veteran informed VA in August 2021 that he had relocated outside of the United States. The AOJ then canceled the scheduled audiological evaluation and denied the claim It is unclear why the scheduled audiological evaluation was not rescheduled as VA was promptly informed that the Veteran had relocated. The failure to obtain an etiological opinion in this case is a pre-decisional duty to assist error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed tinnitus. The examiner should review the record and note such review in the examination report. This remand should be provided to the examiner. The examination should include a review of the Veteran's history and current complaints as well as a comprehensive evaluation and any tests deemed necessary. The need for further in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner is asked to furnish an opinion with respect to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's currently diagnosed tinnitus is caused by or otherwise etiologically related to service, to include conceded in-service noise exposure? The examiner is directed to address the complete lay and medical evidence of record to include the June 2018 statement. A rationale should be provided for all opinions offered. If it is not possible to provide a specific opinion regarding the above questions, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). The medical opinion must support the conclusions reached with an analysis that is adequate to consider and weigh against other evidence of record; medical opinions must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the clinician so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. 2. When scheduling the VA examination, notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for the examination and to cooperate in the development of his claim. The consequences for failure to report for any VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.J. Kim, 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.