Citation Nr: A21020676 Decision Date: 12/30/21 Archive Date: 12/30/21 DOCKET NO. 200625-96236 DATE: December 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to January 1969. The claim currently before the Board originates from a July 2019 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). Pub. L. No. 115-55, 131 Stat. 1105 (2017) (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.). This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review on or after February 19, 2019. As this case is an appeal of a July 2019 rating decision, this decision has been written consistent with the new AMA framework. In June 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 (Decision Review Request: Board Appeal) electing a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge. However, when, as here, there are pre-decisional, duty-to-assist, errors it is permissible for the Board to have them corrected before deciding the claim on appeal. The Board notes that the Veteran's hearing was scheduled for October 2021; however, the Veteran was not in attendance. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran has stated, in his initial statement in support of claim, that he fired small arms and was around constant noise from construction and maintenance equipment in the Army. The Veteran testified that he never wore hearing protection during his time in the Army. The Veteran also said that he had trouble hearing in the Army and that his hearing issues increased after service. The Veteran also stated that his military occupation specialty, engineer equipment repairman, has the highest probability of exposure to acoustic traumas. The AOJ has conceded that "[t]he evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during your service. Personnel records show that [the Veteran's] MOS was a construction equipment repairer, which has a high probability of hazardous noise exposure." Medical records indicate that the Veteran has been seen for his bilateral hearing loss at the VA since approximately 2012. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2019. Although the VA examiner found sensorineural hearing loss in both ears, he concluded it was less likely than not that it was related to service. The examiner rationalized that "Hearing test administered on separation from Army 08/22/1968 revealed normal hearing bilateral." The Veteran is competent to provide evidence of what he experiences, including his symptomatology and medical history. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Veteran is competent to report what he experienced. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the Board notes the multiple statements that the Veteran has made, including his experience of hearing loss immediately during and after service. The Veteran also discussed how his MOS has a high probability of hazardous noise exposure. The VA examiner did not address any of these contentions. In addition, the Board notes that the VA examiner did not address the audiology measurements from the entrance examination to the separation examination. As such, the Board must remand for a new medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the file to the June 2019 VA examiner for an addendum opinion on the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. If the VA examiner is unavailable, return the file to an examiner of similar qualification. The VA examiner must discuss: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability is related to service. (b.) The VA examiner must discuss the difference between the results of the entrance and separation audiometer examinations. (c.) The VA examiner must address the Veteran's observations. The Veteran is competent to provide evidence of what he experiences, including his symptomatology and medical history. We make no determination as to credibility. (d.) The VA examiner must be aware that the Veteran's military occupation specialty is considered to have a high probability of hazardous noise exposure, and the Veteran has stated that he was not given hearing protection while in the Army. A rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jonah Nelson, 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.