Citation Nr: 21006192 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-34 619 DATE: February 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 in the United States Army from October 1991 to January 1997, and from August 2009 to June 2011, to include service in Kuwait and Iraq. He also had service in a reserve component of the military. His decorations include the Army Service Ribbon, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. The original rating decision underlying the present appeal was issued by the RO in St. Louis, Missouri in January 2014. After receiving another claim for the same disabilities within a year, and additional evidence, the RO confirmed and continued the prior denials in the February 2015 rating decision. Although the Board sincerely regrets the delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim and to afford him every possible consideration. 1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran seeks to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus due to in-service noise exposure. His DD Forms 214 show that his military occupational specialty (MOS) during his first period of active service was cannon crewmember, which is associated with a high probability of hazardous noise exposure. His MOS during his second period of active service was military policeman, which is associated with a moderate probability of hazardous noise exposure. See Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Fast Letter 10-35 (September 2, 2010) (modifying the development process in claims for hearing loss and/or tinnitus). The Veteran was last examined by VA for his claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus in September 2013. The Board recognizes that, generally, the mere passage of time is not a sufficient basis for a new examination. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007). On the other hand, the proper rating of a disability requires an examination that is “contemporaneous.” See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991); see also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). Here, the RO denied the Veteran’s claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus based on a September 2013 VA examiner’s findings that the Veteran did not have a hearing loss disability for VA purposes pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, and because he denied the presence of tinnitus. However, VA treatment records dated in January 2017, January 2018, and May 2018 show complaints of tinnitus and worsening hearing loss. Based on the foregoing, a remand for a new VA examination is warranted. These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify, and provide appropriate releases for, any care providers who may possess new or additional evidence pertinent to the issues on appeal. If he provides the necessary release(s), assist him in obtaining the records identified, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Any new or additional (i.e., non-duplicative) evidence received should be associated with the record. If any of the records sought are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect that fact and the Veteran and his representative should be notified. 2. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 3. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, arrange to have the Veteran scheduled for a VA audiology examination. The examiner should conduct and record the results of puretone audiometric and Maryland CNC speech discrimination testing. Any additional evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should also be conducted. After reviewing the record, the examiner is requested to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing disability that had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, his periods of active service, to include in-service noise exposure. The examiner is also requested to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the Veteran has tinnitus that had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, his periods of active service, to include in-service noise exposure. A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 4. 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 issues on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ragheb, Johnny 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.