Citation Nr: 21013954 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 12-23 877 DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the U.S. Army from October 1983 to October 1986. The Veteran’s second period of service from October 1986 until September 1989 has been found to be dishonorable. The Veteran has limited his claims on appeal to the period of honorable service. This issue comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2009 and April 2010 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia. The issue was remanded in October 2017, January 2019, and October 2020. The Board notes a June 2020 VA letter documents a formal finding of unavailability of the 1984 and 1985 U.S. Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany. In cases such as this, where the Veteran’s service records are unavailable, it is especially incumbent on VA to carefully consider the Veteran’s contentions. See O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 401, 406 (1991). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Remand is required for substantial compliance with the prior October 2020 Board remand. The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. When VA undertakes to obtain an opinion, it must ensure that the opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). In the October 2020 remand, the Board requested that the RO obtain an addendum opinion. The Board directed the examiner to address the July 2020 VA examination, the Veteran’s lay statement that he did not have hearing protection while in service, service treatment records (STRs), to include May 1983, June 1984, November 1985, and May 1989 audiograms; and the Veteran’s military occupational specialty of Armor Crewman, which has a high probability of military noise exposure. As such has not been accomplished remand is once again necessary. The Veteran received a VA audiology examination in December 2020. The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion, explaining that there was no significant shift in hearing from entrance to separation and no complaint of hearing loss from his records. The examiner acknowledged the May 1989 separation examination and the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) as an Armor Crewman with exposure to combat tank, machine gun, and pistol fire. The examiner, however, did not consider the prior examination of record or all the audiograms contained in the STRs. Also, the examiner ignored the Veteran’s lay statements that he did not have hearing protection during service and did not address the Veteran’s MOS high probability of noise exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the bilateral hearing loss. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. If an examination is deemed necessary, it shall be provided. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. (a) The examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the bilateral hearing loss had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active military service, including in-service noise exposure. The examiner must address the following: 1) the December 2020 and July 2020 VA audiology examination; 2) the March 2009 claim where the Veteran reported he did not have hearing protection while in service; 3) any relevant STRs, to include May 1983, June 1984, November 1985, and May 1989 audiograms; and 4) the Veteran’s military occupational specialty of Armor Crewman, which has a high probability of military noise exposure. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Braxton, 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.