Citation Nr: 21042154 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-23 278 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for hearing loss. Service connection for tinnitus. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1971 to July 1975. The case is on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision. An April 2016 statement of the case (SOC) addressed the evaluation of a noncompensable rating regarding an ingrown left great toenail, service connection for hearing loss, and service connection for tinnitus. In his April 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran specifically limited his substantive appeal to service connection for hearing loss and service connection for tinnitus. Thus, the issue of a noncompensable rating regarding an ingrown left great toenail is not currently before the Board. In July 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. 1. Service connection for hearing loss. The Veteran is seeking service connection for hearing loss. He contends he has hearing loss due to noise exposure related to his duties in the Army Infantry and that his hearing has been declining since his time in service. He asserts he was exposed to several types of firearms, mortar, and gun fire. He also asserts that he was also exposed to noise associated with riding in aircraft, helicopters, and motor vehicles. A VA opinion was provided regarding this claim in May 2016. A VA examiner reviewed the Veteran's records and conducted a telephone interview with the Veteran. The examiner concluded that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's hearing loss is related to exposure to noise from weapons, aircraft, or machinery during military service. She explained that enlistment and discharge testing results show normal hearing bilaterally, and there was no standard threshold shift when comparing enlistment and discharge testing results. In this case, the Board finds that the May 2016 opinion is not entirely adequate to decide the claim. In this regard, the Veteran asserts that at the time he was called for his interview by the VA examiner, he did not realize he was being questioned by the VA examiner regarding his hearing loss claim and as a result, and did not provide adequate information for the examiner. See June 2017 lay statement. In addition, the Board finds another opinion is warranted by an otolaryngologist (ENT) to determine the etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss. As such, a new examination and opinion are warranted on remand. 2. Service connection for tinnitus. This issue is intertwined with the claim of service connection for hearing loss. Thus, this issue will also be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination (or telehealth interview, record review, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) by an otolaryngologist (ENT) for an opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus. The entire claims file should be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner is asked to address each whether the Veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including noise exposure. (Continued on the next page) A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions reached. Consideration should be given to the Veteran's the lay statements regarding the onset of his hearing loss and tinnitus. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Gray, 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.