Citation Nr: 21069387 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 19-17 098 DATE: November 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1953 to April 1955. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board, which was scheduled for September 29, 2021; however, the Veteran failed to show for his hearing and he has not requested that his hearing be rescheduled for good cause. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. Unfortunately, a remand is required before the Board can adjudicate these matters. Specifically, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2017 and the examiner provided negative etiology opinions. However, the examiner's opinions are inadequate for several reasons. First, the examiner's reliance on the results of whisper tests at entrance and separation from service is inadequate because whisper tests may not reveal the presence of an in-service hearing loss disability. Second, the examiner did not consider the Veteran's in-service noise exposure illustrated by his military occupational specialty (MOS) of cannoneer and assignment with the B Btry 780th Field Artillery Battalion. Third, VA regulations do not preclude service connection for a hearing loss which first met VA's definition of disability after service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). The Board acknowledges the private opinion from R.W., the Veteran's audiologist, which was received in August 2017. However, the provider did not address the significance, if any, of post-service occupational noise exposure. As such, the opinion is inadequate for rating purposes. Accordingly, on remand, opinions must be obtained addressing whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to service, to include in-service noise exposure while serving as a cannoneer in an artillery unit. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records, if any. 2. Provide the Veteran's claims file to an audiologist or other qualified VA medical professional to determine whether his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to service. The entire claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by, the examiner. If the examiner cannot provide the opinions without examining the Veteran, then and examination must be scheduled. The examiner must opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the claimed bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to the Veteran's service. The examiner must also opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any tinnitus had its onset in service, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to the Veteran's service. In providing his or her opinion, the examiner must consider the Veteran's MOS of cannoneer, assignment to an artillery unit, the private opinion from R.W., and the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his symptoms. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report history and symptoms, and that his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, the examiner should provide a rationale for doing so. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions rendered. (Continued on the next page) 3. Then, readjudicate the Veteran's claims on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, provide the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate period for response. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. G. Alderman, 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.