Citation Nr: 21012238 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 15-19 915A DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include based on otosclerosis, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1961 to July 1961. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran presented testimony at a Board hearing in October 2018. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the Veteran’s claims folder. This case was previously before the Board in July 2019, on which occasion the claims were remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include based on otosclerosis, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Upon review of the claims file, the Board has determined that further development is necessary before the claim can be adjudicated.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding the issue of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. In July 2019, the Board remanded the claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus so that the Veteran’s National Guard records could be associated with his claims file. Additionally, the Board directed the RO to verify the Veteran’s periods of active duty training and inactive duty training. The record indicates that a request for information for the Veteran’s National Guard records was submitted. (12/11/2019, VA 21-3101, p. 1). However, the Board finds that the request was flawed, as it erroneously listed the Veteran’s period of service as January 1961 to July 1961. While this period of time reflects the Veteran’s period of active duty service, the record clearly indicates that he served in the National Guard from September 1960 to September 1966. (6/25/2013, Service Record, p. 1). Also, the record does not indicate that the RO attempted to verify the Veteran’s periods of active duty training and inactive duty training as directed by the Board in the July 2019 opinion. The Board additionally remanded the Veteran’s claim for a VA examination and opinion to determine the nature and etiology of otosclerosis. The requested opinion was proffered in November 2020. The VA examiner opined that otosclerosis is less likely than not caused by service related “exposure.” In rendering an opinion, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s military records do not mention a diagnosis of otosclerosis. The examiner also noted that the Veteran’s private treatment records from April 2014 and March 2015 do not mention a diagnosis of otosclerosis. (11/3/2020, C&P Exam, p. 2). The Board finds that the November 2020 opinion is inadequate for evaluation purposes as the examination and opinion are inconsistent. In this regard, in noting the absence of a diagnosis of otosclerosis in the Veteran’s private treatment records, the examiner seems to be suggesting that the evidence of record does not support a current diagnosis of the disorder. However, the examiner rendered a diagnosis of otosclerosis in the examination report he submitted in conjunction with his medical opinion. (11/3/2020, C&P Exam, p. 2). Further, the November 2020 examination is not responsive to the Board’s July 2019 opinion. In the aforementioned opinion, the Board specifically noted that a VA examiner previously opined that otosclerosis is not the result of noise exposure, but concluded that an additional opinion was needed to clarify whether otosclerosis was “otherwise related to the Veteran’s service.” In limiting the November 2020 opinion to whether otosclerosis was related to in-service noise exposure, the RO failed to substantially comply with the Board’s July 2019 opinion. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives. Therefore, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In rendering this decision, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion in November 2020, wherein a private medical provider opined that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to in-service hazardous noise exposure. (12/10/2020, Medical Treatment Record, p. 3). However, the Board finds that the November 2020 examination is inadequate as the examiner failed to provide rationale supporting his conclusion. See Nieves-Rodriquez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s National Guard service personnel records. Verify all periods of active duty training and inactive duty training for alleged service in the National Guard from 1960 to 1966. If necessary, a request should be made to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for hearing loss and otosclerosis. The examiner must review the claims file and opine on whether hearing loss and otosclerosis are at least as likely as not related to service. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Glenn, 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.