Citation Nr: 21010838 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 18-05 683 DATE: February 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Appellant served on active duty for training from July 1966 to January 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO). In a January 2020 correspondence letter, the Appellant was made aware that a travel Board hearing was scheduled for May 5, 2020. In April 2020, the Appellant was notified that the Board hearing was postponed due to COVID-19. In November 2020, the Appellant was notified that he was scheduled for a video hearing in December 2020. However, the Appellant failed to show to his hearing and has not indicated that he would like to be rescheduled. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Appellant has expressed that his current hearing loss is related to his active service. The Appellant noted that he was not provided hearing protection while on active service and that he has had hearing loss since service. The Appellant’s DD Form 214 notes a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of telegraphic-typewriter operator. In addition, the DD Form 214 indicated that he was awarded the Rifle Sharpshooter Badge. The Appellant was afforded a VA examination in October 2014. Audiogram testing showed a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. However, the examiner opined that the Appellant’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely as not (50% probability or greater) caused by or a result of an event in military service. The examiner stated that the Appellant served on active duty for only six months with MOS as a teletype operator from 1966 to 1967. The examiner noted that the Appellant’s exit examination revealed normal hearing in both ears suggesting the most normal hearing in both ears at exit from active duty. The examiner stated that the Appellant’s MOS is teletype operator which is not on the MOS list for significant noise. The Appellant expressed disagreement with the VA examiner’s opinion on his notice of disagreement (NOD) and VA Form 9. The Appellant indicated that the October 2014 VA examiner did not ask the Appellant about service-related exposure to noise contributing to his hearing loss. The Appellant expressed that the VA examiner relied on and was confined to the Appellant’s six months of active duty training as a teletype operator. The Appellant stated that his MOS of teletype operator was a result of a six- or seven-week course in teletype operation but his primary MOS was infantry rifleman, the same as any other Marine. The Appellant stated that basic training and infantry training involved practice and familiarization with firing M14 rifles, pistols, hand grenades, flame throwers, grenade launchers, plastic explosives, rocket launchers artillery, hand to hand combat, and extensive physical training. The Appellant noted that while serving on active Reserves, he had no teletype equipment at any time and that he was assigned to the operations NCO whose functions included building and equipment maintenance and planning training, which included the annual weapons practice and qualifications, one weekend each year. The Appellant stated that during that duty he was instructed to maintain buildings and equipment including two consecutive weekends of renting a jack hammer to break up a concrete floor. The Appellant stated that he was never furnished any hearing protection. The Appellant reported that his civilian career was in office setting and management where he was not subjected to any such noise exposure. The Board finds the October 2014 VA examiner’s opinion to be inadequate as the examiner based the opinion primarily on the fact that there was no hearing loss indicated prior to separation from active duty for training. However, the fact that there was no hearing loss in service is not dispositive of the issue and an opinion based on this fact is inadequate. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). In addition, the examiner failed to consider the fact that the Appellant was awarded the Rifle Sharpshooter Badge and therefore, in-service noise exposure is consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service and is conceded. The examiner also failed to discuss the Appellant’s lay statements reporting noise exposure with no adequate hearing protection. The Appellant has also indicated that he is in receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits. On remand, the AOJ should obtain the Appellant’s SSA records. Furthermore, in March 2015, the Appellant indicated that he has been unable to find a representative and that he would like more information on representatives in his area. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the Appellant information about how to appoint a VA power of attorney. He should be provided all necessary forms and their instructions, as well as a list of VSOs/representatives who represent Veterans before VA. 2. Obtain the Appellant’s records from the Social Security Administration (SSA). 3. Schedule the Appellant for a VA audiological examination with a new examiner to ascertain the nature and etiology of the Appellant’s bilateral hearing loss disability. The examiner should review the claims file and a copy of this REMAND. The examiner should specifically opine as to: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Appellant's bilateral hearing loss had its onset during active duty for training, or is otherwise etiologically related to the Appellant’s active duty for training, to include any incident thereof. The Board notes that the Appellant was not diagnosed with hearing loss at separation or during active duty for training, but that is not dispositive on the issue of whether current hearing loss is related to acoustic trauma in active service. (Continued on the next page)   When formulating his or her opinion, the examiner should specifically comment on the Appellant’s reported noise exposure to M14 rifles, pistols, hand grenades, flame throwers, grenade launchers, plastic explosives, and rocket launchers artillery, with no hearing protection, while on active duty for training. A complete and detailed rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. LESLEY A. REIN Appellants Law Judge Board of Appellants’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. 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.