Citation Nr: 21066593 Decision Date: 11/01/21 Archive Date: 11/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-04 893 DATE: November 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1979 to April 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a hearing in March 2017. The Board remanded this matter in December 2017, March 2020, April 2021, and August 2021 for additional development. As a preliminary matter, the Board concedes the Veteran's exposure to in-service acoustic trauma based on his testimony at the March 2017 hearing that he worked near the end of a runway, ran small boats without ear protection, and worked near diesel engines while on active duty. In the august 2021 remand, the Board requested the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) obtain a medical nexus opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's right ear hearing loss. The Board requested the selected clinician, in part, address whether the Veteran's right ear hearing loss is directly related to his active-duty service. VA obtained the requested nexus opinions in September 2021. The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion, in part, because the Veteran worked in law enforcement for more than 20 years after leaving active duty. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran's duties as a law enforcement officer more likely caused his right ear hearing loss than his in-service noise exposure; however, the Veteran testified at the March 2017 hearing that his duties in law enforcement were administrative only and he was not exposed to noise while working in law enforcement. He further testified that he did not have any other post-service noise exposure. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (indicating an opinion based on an incorrect factual premise has no probative value). Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file to an appropriate clinician to determine whether the Veteran's current right ear hearing loss is related to his military service. If the examiner determines that an additional in-person examination is required, one should be scheduled. Following review of the claims file and, if indicated, examination of the Veteran, the selected clinician must provide an opinion addressing whether the Veteran has a right ear hearing loss disability that is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) the result of disease or injury in service, to include conceded in-service noise exposure. If the examiner opines that the current right ear hearing loss is not related to service because the Veteran's right ear hearing was normal upon discharge from service, the examiner must provide a rationale for why normal hearing in the right ear at discharge from military service would preclude establishing current right ear hearing loss based on conceded in-service noise exposure. If the examiner finds the Veteran's right ear hearing loss is due to post-service factors, such as post-service employment, rather than military service, the examiner must explain why the right ear hearing loss would be MORE likely due to post-service factors rather than the Veteran's active-duty service. This explanation must take into account the Veteran's testimony that his post-military occupation in law enforcement was administrative in nature. All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Zachery S.C. Luce, 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.