Citation Nr: 21067908 Decision Date: 11/08/21 Archive Date: 11/08/21 DOCKET NO. 18-52 032 DATE: November 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant, who achieved Veteran status as a result of the award of service connection for left ear hearing loss, served in the Alabama Air Force National Guard with a period of active duty for training from August 17, 1979, to March 11, 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in March 2018 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. At the time of the Board hearing, the undersigned held the record open for 30 days for the submission of additional evidence. In May 2021, an extension of 90 days was granted and, in August 2021, another extension of 60 days was granted in light of the Veteran's report of a delay in seeing an audiologist so as to obtain evidence in support of his appeal. However, to date, no additional evidence has been received. The Board further notes, in October 2021, the Veteran, through his representative, filed yet another motion in which he requested an extension of 90 days to obtain his service treatment records in support of his appeal. However, the Board observes that such records are already on file. Moreover, numerous extensions totalling almost six months have previously been granted and no additional evidence has been received. Furthermore, VA regulations provide that an extension for the submission of additional evidence may be granted when the appellant demonstrates on motion that there was good cause of delay. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, illness of the appellant or the representative which precluded action during the period; death of an individual representative; illness or incapacity of an individual representative which renders it impractical for an appellant to continue with him or her as presentative; withdrawal of an individual representative; the discovery of evidence that was not available prior to the expiration of the period; and delay in transfer of the appellate record to the Board which precluded timely action with respect ot these matters. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1305(b)(1). Thus, in the instant case, as the evidence that the Veteran indicated he would be submitting is already on file and he has not provided good cause as defined by VA regulations for granting a third extension, the Board herein denies his October 2021 extension request and will move forward with the adjudication of his claim. Nonetheless, as the Board is remanding the instant matter for additional development, the Veteran is advised that he may submit any further evidence for consideration in his appeal while on remand. Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss. The Veteran contends he has right ear hearing loss related to in-service noise exposure. Specifically, he asserts that he initially experienced symptoms of right ear hearing loss immediately following an incident during boot camp when a loud plane flew overhead and he continued to have difficulty with right ear hearing loss after his separation from service and prior to his post-service occupation. A February 2018 VA examination reflects a right ear hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulations, and has acknowledged the Veteran's in-service noise exposure based on his military occupational specialty (MOS) of telephone switching equipment specialist. However, the February 2018 VA examiner concluded the Veteran's current right ear hearing loss was not caused by or a result of an event in service. In support thereof, she noted the Veteran's MOS, but found pertinent that the length of his period of service was less than one calendar year and he reported continuous noise exposure post-service while working in the construction industry and not wearing hearing protection. Further, the VA examiner found significant the absence of in-service reports of decreased hearing. Due to such lack of evidence in the claims file, as well the Veteran's significant history of post-service noise exposure, she concluded the Veteran's hearing loss was less likely as not related to military noise exposure/acoustic trauma. Upon review, the Board notes the VA examiner did not have the opportunity to consider the Veteran's lay testimony regarding his in-service symptoms of right ear hearing loss, as well as his reported symptoms referable to right ear hearing loss immediately following his separation from service and prior to his post-service occupational duties with associated noise exposure. Consequently, a remand is necessary in order to obtain an addendum opinion addressing such matters. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Forward the record, to include a copy of this Remand, to the clinician who conducted the February 2018 examination, or an appropriate substitute, if unavailable. The need for additional examination is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to provide the opinion. After review of the evidence, the clinician should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's right ear hearing loss had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, his military service. When providing the rationale for the opinion, the clinician must address the Veteran's statements pertaining to his history of relevant symptomatology during and since service. In this regard, the clinician should discuss the Veteran's assertions regarding in-service symptoms following a loud plane flying overhead during boot camp as well as his reported symptoms immediately after his separation from service and prior to his post-service occupational noise exposure. The clinician is also advised that the absence of documented evidence of symptoms referable to right ear hearing loss in the Veteran's service treatment records may not be the sole basis of a negative opinion. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. M. Celli, 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.