Citation Nr: 21014373 Decision Date: 03/12/21 Archive Date: 03/12/21 DOCKET NO. 190710-11704 DATE: March 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1951 to November 1951 and served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1955 to July 1957. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2019 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Given the date of the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran’s appeal is governed by the modernized review system, known by the Board as the AMA. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2 (2019). In the July 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. This matter was previously before the Board in March 2020, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran appealed this denial to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Court issued a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) that partially vacated the March 2020 Board decision and remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the JMPR. In its decision, the Court found the Board erred when it failed to provide adequate reasons and bases in support of its adjudication of the bilateral hearing loss claim. The JMPR noted the Board indicated the Veteran did not complaint of suffering of hearing loss until 2008, as found in the Veteran’s April 2019 VA examination. The JMPR stated the Board failed to reconcile this finding with the April 2008 VA treatment record where the Veteran reported he had hearing loss issues for a long time. The JMPR concluded the Board should reconcile this evidence with its statement the Veteran did not report hearing loss symptoms until 2008. The Board notes the Veteran’s VA treatment records report he was positive for hearing loss dating back to November 2006 and reported right ear pain in July 2004. The Veteran contends both eardrums ruptured while in-service from a firing range and his military occupational specialty (MOS) as basic airman was a low probability for noise exposure but his later MOS was field artillery and his MOS was deemed highly probable for noise exposure by VA. The Board finds the May 2019 VA examination to be inadequate, as it is unclear if the Veteran’s lay statements and his complete VA treatment records were previously considered. As such, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA examination to ascertain the current nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must opine whether bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including his MOS and his contention he ruptured his eardrums in-service. The examiner must note that, under applicable law, the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing loss disability is not always fatal to a service connection claim. Evidence of a current hearing disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service. The examiner must discuss the Veteran’s lay statements and perform a complete review of the VA treatment records. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Mouzakis, 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.