Citation Nr: 21027824 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 17-40 049 DATE: May 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1997 to November 2004. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issue for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus was raised by the Veteran in correspondence submitted with the May 2019 VA Form 9 and during the January 2021 Board hearing. This issue, however, was not addressed by the RO in the June 2017 Statement of the Case (SOC) and was not the subject of any other rating decision. As such, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(a). The Veteran is free to file a claim seeking service connection for tinnitus. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends that he currently has bilateral hearing loss because he was exposed to excessive noise without hearing protection during his military service as a radioman, engineman, helmsman, firefighter, and information systems technician. He states that his duties entailed sitting in the ship's engine room for about seven months, twelve hours per day, from around 1998 through 2001. He further contends that his hearing loss has continued since he separated from service. See February 2021 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran attended a VA audiological examination in May 2017. Although the RO conceded noise exposure in April 2017 and June 2017 examination requests, and the VA examiner acknowledged the acoustic trauma associated with engine room noise, a negative etiological opinion was provided for bilateral hearing loss, in part due to the lack of hearing loss demonstrated in service. The Board notes that hearing loss need not be shown in service for service connection to be established; rather, service connection may be established for a current hearing disability with evidence that the current disability is causally related to service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 160 (1993). The Board also notes that there appear to be outstanding VA treatment records post-dating the June 2017 SOC. A January 2018 CAPRI record indicates a hearing evaluation conducted when the Veteran established VA care showed bilateral hearing loss, and that the Veteran was referred to an audiologist. The Veteran testified that he underwent a VA-outsourced audiology examination for hearing loss and tinnitus at Cornerstone in September 2020, resulting in the issuance of hearing aids for both ears. See February 2021 Hearing Transcript. A remand is necessary to clarify whether the Veteran's active duty audiogram test results evidence in-service hearing loss that has continued since service, regardless of whether the hearing loss met VA's definition of a disability during the Veteran's active service. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination, it must provide an adequate one). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any Veteran's outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any pertinent private treatment received and make reasonable efforts to obtain all relevant records pertaining to the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. Associate the records with the claims file. 3. After the outstanding medical records have been obtained and associated with the claims file or reasonable efforts to obtain them have been exhausted, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician. If the examiner finds it necessary, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner should address the following: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to service, to include military noise exposure or acoustic trauma? A rationale must be included to support the opinion. In providing a rationale, the clinician must consider the Veteran's lay statements. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jones, Catherine J. 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.