Citation Nr: 21040943 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 18-00 127 DATE: July 7, 2021 REMANDED The petition to reopen the previously denied claim to establish service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. The petition to reopen the previously denied claim to establish service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Air Force from January 1966 to January 1970. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Veteran's claims to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities were originally denied in a December 2011 rating decision. The Veteran failed to file a timely appeal and that decision became final. The Veteran filed a request for the reopening of these claims in February 2016, and his underlying claims remain denied by the RO in a June 2016 rating decision, citing to a lack of new and material evidence. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in June 2016, followed by a subsequent appeal to the Board in November 2017. Of note, although the Veteran originally requested a Board hearing when he filed his appeal to the Board in November 2017, subsequently, on June 14, 2021, he requested a withdrawal of his scheduled Board hearing. See, VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim. 1. The petition to reopen the previously denied claim to establish service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. 2. The petition to reopen the previously denied claim to establish service connection for a tinnitus disability is remanded. The Board finds that adjudication of the Veteran's petitions to reopen his previously denied claims to establish service connection for these disabilities would be premature at this time because the record is incomplete and pertinent development is necessary. Specifically, the Veteran's file is devoid of any indication that the Veteran's personnel records have been sought or obtained. This evidence is relevant to the matters before the Board, as such may corroborate the Veteran's reports of incurring exposure to excessive noise while stationed in the Republic of Vietnam. Further, as the service records alluded to above are extant and not currently part of the record, the finality of the prior denial may be overcome, obviating the need to reopen and changing the standard of review. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c). Moreover, the Board finds the VA examiner's negative opinion based on a lack of documentation of in-service complaints and a report of normal limits on audiometric testing at separation from service is inadequate, because the VA examiner did not address the Veteran's assertion that his military occupational specialty (MOS) as an instrument repairman on the "flight line" in the US Air Force is the basis for his current hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination, it must ensure that the examination is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993). Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is warranted to obtain the Veteran's outstanding military personnel records and for a new more complete VA audiological examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take all appropriate actions to obtain the Veteran's military personnel records during his period of service with the United States Air Force from January 1966 to January 1970. 2. Provide the Veteran with the opportunity to submit information and/or documentation in support of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus claims, such as, any outstanding private or VA audiological treatment records, and "buddy" statements from former fellow service member(s) evidencing his hearing loss related issues during service and/or from his spouse evidencing his hearing loss related issues since service. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an audiological examination by an appropriate VA examiner to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations that are deemed necessary should be conducted. The claims file must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner must specify in the examination report that these records have been reviewed. Following a complete review of the record, the examiner is asked to provide the following responses: a) State whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had its onset during service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active duty service, to include the Veteran's MOS as "flight line" repairman and service in the Republic of Vietnam. b) State whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's tinnitus had its onset during service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active duty service, to include the Veteran's MOS as "flight line" repairman and service in the Republic of Vietnam. The VA examiner must address the extent of any functional impairment due to the Veteran's disability and furnish a full description of the effects of the service-connected disabilities upon the Veteran's daily ordinary activities. A complete rationale must be provided for all findings and conclusions reached. The examiner should discuss any lay statements made by the Veteran with respect to the etiology of his claimed disabilities, specifically his report of excessive noise exposure as a "flight line" repairman, and his service in the Republic of Vietnam. If the examiner must resort to speculation for any of the requested opinions, an explanation as to why this is so, is required. The examiner is advised that the term "at least as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of a certain conclusion as it is to find against it. 4. After the above development has been completed, the Agency of Jurisdiction (AOJ) should readjudicate the issues on appeal. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J.B. King, 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.