Citation Nr: 21012981 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 13-05 415 DATE: March 8, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1968 to May 1971. This matter comes before 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 August 2014, the Veteran testified in a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who is no longer employed at the Board. A transcript of the hearing has been included in the electronic record and has been reviewed. In February 2015 and October 2019, the Board remanded the claims on appeal for additional development. In November 2020, the Board offered the Veteran an opportunity to testify in a hearing before the undersigned VLJ. He did not respond the offer. As such, the case is again before the Board for appellate review. A remand is warranted for VA compensation examinations into each of the claims on appeal. With regard to the hearing loss and tinnitus claims, the Veteran underwent VA examination into the claims in June 2012. Additional evidence, to include hearing testimony, has been added to the record since then. With regard to the psychiatric disorder claim, the Veteran underwent VA examination in August 2017 and June 2012. Neither examiner found that the Veteran had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) despite his service in the Republic of Vietnam between 1968 and 1969. However, a January 2021 medical record indicates that the Veteran has chronic PTSD related to service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the claims to the extent possible. Include in the record any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Schedule an audiology examination to determine the nature and etiology of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. After reviewing the electronic claims file, examining the Veteran, and interviewing him, the examiner should answer the following question. Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that hearing loss and/or tinnitus had its onset in service or is related to a disease, event, or injury during service? In answering this question, address noises associated with service in Vietnam in the late 1960s. Please explain in detail any opinion provided and the supporting rationale. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a certain conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of such a conclusion as it is to find against it. In rendering the requested opinion, the examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a basis for doubting the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should indicate this in the examination report and provide a rationale for that determination. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. 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). 3. Schedule an examination with a VA psychologist or psychiatrist to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. After reviewing the claims file, interviewing the Veteran, and examining him, the examiner should answer the following questions: (a). What acquired psychiatric disorders does the Veteran have? (b). Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that any non-PTSD acquired psychiatric disorder had its onset during service or is related to a disease, event, or injury during service? In answering (b), discuss the Veteran’s service in Vietnam in the late 1960s. (c). If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, is it at least as likely as not that any asserted stressor regarding service in Vietnam is adequate to support the PTSD diagnosis? (d). If so, is it at least as likely as not that the PTSD symptoms underlying the PTSD diagnosis relate to the alleged stressor(s)? Only answer (c) and (d) if you find that the Veteran has PTSD. Please explain in detail any opinion provided and the supporting rationale. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a certain conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of such a conclusion as it is to find against it. In rendering the requested opinion, the examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a basis for doubting the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should indicate this in the examination report and provide a rationale for that determination. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. 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, 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.