Citation Nr: 22017181 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 15-36 267 DATE: March 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1979 to August 1985. She served in the Navy Reserves between 1987 and 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran contends she developed hearing loss due to noise exposure when she was on active duty, and in the Reserves. The record includes the opinion of a 2019 VA examiner as well as a 2018 private medical opinion that relate the Veteran's hearing loss to her military service. These opinions, however, do not appear to appreciate the distinction between the Veteran's active duty, when she was on duty 24 hours a day between 1979 and 1985, and her Reserve service where she would have had various intervals of active duty for training and inactive duty training. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The term "active military, naval, or air service" includes active duty, and any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and any period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24) When a claim is based on a period of active duty for training, or inactive duty training, in order to establish entitlement to benefits, there must be some evidence that the disability for which service connection is being sought was "'incurred or aggravated' during the relevant period of service." Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 47 (2010) (quoting 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24)(B); Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 320, 324 (2008); and McManaway v. West, 13 Vet. App. 60, 67 (1999). The wording of the favorable medical opinions appears to presuppose the Veteran was on continuous active service between 1979 and 2005, and link her hearing loss to that 26 year period generally. To establish service connection, the disability needs to be linked with a particular period of service. In this case, that would be either the 1979 to 1985 period of service, or to a particular period of active duty for training or inactive duty training. In view of the vagueness of the favorable opinions concerning the period of service to which they relate the Veteran's hearing loss, those opinions are insufficient to establish service connection. The record also includes an adverse medical opinion from a VA provider dated in 2013. This opinion, however, only observes the Veteran's hearing tests results shown during her active duty, and on records maintained by her Reserve unit were normal (for VA purposes). While that may be the case, the reasons why that is significant require explanation, particularly in light of the Veteran's duties with aircraft, and in the Philippines. In view of the foregoing, further medical opinion should be sought. In addition, the Veteran may supplement the record with any further information she wishes to provide, including identifying any particular period of service to which she attributes the claimed disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify the particular period of active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training when she understands the onset of her hearing loss occurred. 2. Next refer the claims file to an appropriate person for an opinion as to when the Veteran's hearing loss had its onset, and if on active duty (from 1979 - 1985), the reasons for this conclusion should be fully explained. If it is considered the Veteran's hearing loss had its onset on a period of active duty training, or inactive duty training, the reasons for this conclusion should be set forth, with the particular dates of training identified. 3. Re-adjudicate the claim. MICHAEL KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Erin J. Trojanowski, 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.