Citation Nr: 21028629 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-03 785 DATE: May 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss (BHL) is remanded. REASON FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1986 to January 2005. His period of service from April 1986 to January 13, 2000, is considered honorable for VA purposes and his service from January 14, 2000, to January 2005 is considered dishonorable for VA purposes. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the issue for further development in July 2019. Entitlement to service connection for BHL is remanded. Unfortunately, another remand is required in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. The July 2019 Board remand noted that a VA examination was necessary to determine whether the Veteran had current BHL for VA purposes. An April 2016 series of VA examinations included an examination for tinnitus, but not hearing loss. The remand noted that although the Veteran was incarcerated in a state correctional facility (and not eligible for parole until 2034), it was unclear whether the correctional facility had the ability to conduct audiological testing and/or whether an audiological examination could be otherwise arranged. Subsequently, the Veteran was scheduled for a VA hearing loss examination, which was canceled because the Veteran was "unavailable." A July 2020 Report of General Information notes that the correctional facility did not transport prisoners for VA examinations, nor did it have access to audiological testing equipment. It is not clear to the Board, however, that all possible venues for obtaining access to the Veteran for a VA examination have been exhausted. Specifically, although the correctional facility does not provide transportation to VA examinations, it appears that VA doctors can bring audio equipment with them to test the Veteran at the correctional facility. See August 2020 correspondence from the Veteran. Furthermore, the Board notes that April 2016 examinations included at least some in-person examinations at the correctional facility and VA treatment records dated in 2020 note that the Veteran was seen at the correctional facility as part of an outreach and educational program. Thus, it seems reasonable that a VA or fee-basis examiner could bring audio equipment to the correctional facility to conduct a VA examination. See 38 U.S.C. § 5711; also see Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 191 (1995), citing Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 192 (1991). The Board therefore finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the remand directives and corrective action is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that where the remand of the Board or the Court is not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA hearing loss examination at the Lovelock Correctional Center. Request that the VA examiner bring audio equipment to the correctional facility to conduct the examination. If a negative response is received, the reasoning should be thoroughly documented. N. NELSON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Smith, 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.