Citation Nr: 21015911 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 15-40 045 DATE: March 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service with the Army Reserves from November 1999 to April 2000 and from April 14, 2003 to June 21, 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A Travel Board hearing was held with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2021. The hearing transcript is associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. At his October 2013 VA examination, the Veteran was found not to have hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. However, at the February 2021 hearing, the Veteran asserted that his hearing has worsened since his last VA examination. Treatment medical records also give an indication of worsening. The Veteran emphasized that his VA examination is now over seven years old. A remand is warranted to ascertain whether the Veteran suffers from VA compensable bilateral hearing loss that is etiologically related to his service. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The Veteran asserts that his hypertension is etiologically related to his service. He cites to in-service high blood pressure readings as the initial manifestation. The record contains an opinion from a February 2021 Dr. N. P. which correlates the Veteran’s active service to elevated blood pressure readings. However, the opinion carries limited probative value as it lacks a rationale. As the record contains an opinion suggesting a correlation between the Veteran’s service and his current disability, a remand for VA examination and opinion is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination with an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must state whether hearing loss for VA purposes has been demonstrated at any time during the appeal period. If hearing loss for VA purposes has been diagnosed, opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed hearing loss began during service, within one year of service separation, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event or disease. In rendering this opinion, the examiner must discuss the Veteran’s credible lay statements and his military treatment records. The examiner must rationalize any negative determination against the Veteran having a military occupational specialty of Ammunition Specialist, which is associated with noise exposure, and his currently service-connected tinnitus. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension. After reviewing the record and examining the Veteran, the examiner must address on the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hypertension had its (1) initial onset in service or (2) within a year of service discharge or (3) is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. (b.) The examiner should specifically address the question of whether the blood pressure readings recorded during the Veteran’s active service represented the initial manifestations/onset of his hypertension. In doing so, the examiner is asked to address any blood pressure reading recorded in service, to include those taken at enlistment, discharge, and during course of any treatment or medical care. (c.) The examiner must also address the significance of Dr. N.P.’s February 2021 opinion correlating the Veteran’s hypertension to his in-service high blood pressure. (signature next page) MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. L. Burroughs, 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.