Citation Nr: 21071249 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 17-54 365 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1986 to February 1986 and from September 1987 to March 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, AZ. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran's law judge (VLJ) at an October 2020 videoconference hearing at the Phoenix, AZ RO. The transcript has been associated with the electronic claims file. Most recently, in a November 2020 decision, the Board remanded this issue for additional development, which has been substantially completed. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran contends that he noticed tinnitus in while in service and continued to experience ringing in his ears after discharge. See October 2020 Hearing Transcript. Based on a review of the electronic claims folder, the Board finds that additional development is needed prior to adjudication of the claim. In this case, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of chronic tinnitus. See October 2017 VA Treatment Record. The Veteran has also competently contended that his disability is related to an inservice injury and his military occupational specialty, which included service in a field artillery unit. As there is evidence of a current disability, some possible evidence of an in-service injury, and some evidence of link to service, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine if his current disability is etiologically linked to active-duty military service. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain all outstanding VA treatment records and any private treatment records identified by the Veteran. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. 2. The AOJ should schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's tinnitus. The record, to include a copy of this Remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner, and the examination report should note that review. The VA examiner should address whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. a 50 percent probability) that the Veteran's tinnitus, began during or is otherwise due to active service, to include as due to his MOS. In doing so, the examiner should consider the Veteran's competent lay assertions of record. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. If the examiner feels that a requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and return the case to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.