Citation Nr: 21075964 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 19-30 775 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER The petition to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a hearing loss disorder is granted. The appeal is allowed to that extent only. REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a hearing loss disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss was denied in a February 2015 rating decision the Veteran did not appeal. 2. Evidence received since February 2015 relates to unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Since then, the Veteran has submitted private medical evidence and lay statements connecting hearing loss to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The February 2015 rating decision that denied a claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. 2. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1993 to June 1997, January to June 2003, and March 2005 to November 2006. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2021, the Veteran testified in a hearing before the Board. A transcript of the hearing is included in the record and has been reviewed. Claim to reopen service connection As noted above, new and material evidence has been included in the claims file since the February 2015 final rating decision. As such, the petition to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is granted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.302. This issue is addressed further in the remand section below. REASONS FOR REMAND A remand is warranted for the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. A new examination should be conducted into the claim. The most recent audiology examination conducted in June 2019 found the Veteran without a hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran asserts through his representative that he currently has hearing loss. Further, private medical evidence submitted into evidence in November 2021 indicates he has a current hearing loss disorder (although it is not clear to the Board whether the audiology records submitted into evidence show a disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385). A new VA examination should be conducted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. 2. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the claim. Include in the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records. 3. Schedule an examination into the claim of entitlement to service connection for a hearing loss disorder. After reviewing the electronic claims file, interviewing the Veteran, and examining him, the examiner should answer the following questions: (a) Does the Veteran have a hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 ? (b) If so, is it at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that a hearing loss disability had its onset during service, or is related to a disease, event, or injury during service? In answering this question, consider the Veteran's reports of acoustic trauma during service. In rendering the requested report, the examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher McEntee 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.