Citation Nr: 21072447 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 20-05 719 DATE: December 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1956 to January 1957, with subsequent service in the Army Reserves. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the October 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A Board video-conference hearing was held in October 2021 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to hazardous noise experienced during his service, to include in the Army Reserves, and continued thereafter. Prior to adjudication on the merits, the Board must remand the claim to obtain any available service treatment records (STRs) pertaining to his service in the Army Reserves. Additionally, a new medical opinion should be obtained. Reserve Service Treatment Records It has been established that the Veteran's active duty STRs were likely destroyed by a fire at the National Archives and Records Administration in July 1973. See April 2018 Report of General Information and July 2018 Notification Letter to Veteran. Yet, his DD Form 214 noted that in January 1957, he was released from active duty to the Army Reserves to complete the remaining service obligation of seven years and two months, which would make his separation from the Reserves to be approximately March 1964. A review of the claims file does not find that his STRs for his period of service in the Army Reserves has been requested or obtained. As the records may contain pertinent information related to the claims on appeal, a remand is required to obtain the records. VA Medical Opinions The Veteran was afforded a VA audiology examination in July 2018 and was diagnosed with a bilateral hearing loss diability and tinnitus. The examiner, an audiologist, was unable to relate the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss to service without resorting to speculation. See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 390 (2010) ("An examiner's conclusion that a diagnosis or etiology opinion is not possible without resort to speculation is a medical conclusion just as much as a firm diagnosis or a conclusive opinion . . . however, the examiner must explain the basis for such an opinion or the basis must otherwise be apparent in the Board's review of the evidence."). In this case, the examiner did explain that she was unable to provide an opinion because there are no STRs to review. She also indicated that if STRs are found, then another opinion should be obtained. As indicated, a search for the Veteran's reserve service records will be conducted and any available records may help the examiner in formulating an opinion. Further, the Board observes that the July 2018 VA examiner stated that the Veteran's level of hearing thresholds does not correlate with a pattern of hearing loss due to noise exposure; however, she offered no explanation as to why this is so. On remand, the examiner will have an opportunity to clarify that statement. Additionally, the same VA examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is less likely as not related to service. Curiously however, the examiner reasoned that the STRs were reviewed and are silent for complaints of acoustic trauma, hearing loss, or tinnitus. However, as previously noted, there are no STRs in the file and thus they could not have been reviewed by the examiner. See also, October 2018 addendum acknowledging review of a private opinion. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). As the medical opinions of record in this case are inadequate on which to decide the hearing loss and tinnitus claims, additional etiology opinions should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact all pertinent records repositories to request all service treatment records associated with the Veteran's service in the Army Reserves from January 1957 to February 1964. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be documented for the record and required notice must be provided to the Veteran. 2. Thereafter, but regardless if new evidence is received, request another opinion as to the etiology of the bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus; a new examination should only be obtained at the discretion of the VA examiner. The claims file and a copy of this remand will be made available to the examiner, who will acknowledge receipt and review of these materials. After a careful review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to respond to the following: (a) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability), that the bilateral hearing loss had its onset during a qualified period of service, or is otherwise related to an event, injury, or disease incurred during a qualified period of service, to include as exposure to hazardous noise. Note: his MOS was a wheel vehicle mechanic and was attached to an infantry battalion both during regular Army and the Reserves. (b) In doing so, please address the (i)September 2018 private etiology opinion, (ii) the Veteran's competent and credible lay assertions regarding exposure to arms fire in basic training and annual training; working around bulldozers, cranes, heavy equipment, and air compressors; experiencing tinnitus in service from concussion blasts from setting off C4 for demolition of bridges and concrete abutments; and that he had difficulty hearing people in low tones shortly after separation from service, and (iii) any post-service occupation noise exposure as a pipefitter. If it is not possible to provide an opinion without speculation, 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). (c) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability), that the tinnitus had its onset during a qualified period of service, or is otherwise related to an event, injury, or disease incurred during a qualified period of service, to include as exposure to hazardous noise. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims on appeal. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moldawer, 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.