Citation Nr: 21022483 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 16-62 665 DATE: April 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from June 1996 to October 2002. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned in January 2021. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. The appeal is remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the Veteran if further action, on his part, is required. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in August 2014 to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner determined that Veteran’s hearing loss was less likely than not related to the Veteran’s military service because the Veteran’s hearing loss existed prior to service, and it was not permanently worsened as a result of his service. Further, the examiner determined that the Veteran’s tinnitus is at least as likely as not a symptom associated with the hearing loss. In making the above determinations, the examiner cited to the Veteran’s entrance examination. However, the Veteran’s entrance examination is absent from the Veteran’s claim file. Additionally, the AOJ confirmed its denial of service connection in the October 2016 Statement of the Case. In support of the continued denial, the AOJ provided audiometric data from the Veteran’s entrance examination. In the December 2016 Form 9, the Veteran submitted audiometric data that differed from the information provided in the October 2016 Statement of the Case, claiming it is the correct audiogram test results from his September 1994 enlistment examination. Once again, the Veteran’s entrance examination is not associated with the Veteran’s claims file. Therefore, a remand is necessary to obtain the Veteran’s entrance examination to properly adjudicate the Veteran’s claims. As the actual content of the entrance examination is unknown including whether the presumption of soundness applies, the Board defers consideration of additional medical opinion at this time. See generally Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011) (discussing the “chicken-or-egg” dilemma faced by VA when requesting opinions and making credibility determinations with an undeveloped record, and recognizing that fact-finding is a responsibility that is ultimately committed to the Board and not a medical examiner). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ shall locate and associate the Veteran’s entrance examination with the claims folder 2. Ask the Veteran to submit any copies of his service treatment records, especially the entrance/enlistment examination, that he has in his possession. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative, if any, a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time to respond. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Patrick C. Brady, Attorney Advisor 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.