Citation Nr: 22017575 Decision Date: 03/25/22 Archive Date: 03/25/22 DOCKET NO. 19-23 449 DATE: March 25, 2022 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from March 1968 to August 1969. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in July 2021. The transcript is associated with the claims file. At the outset, the Board notes the Veteran is diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss within the requirements of VA regulations. The 2018 VA examination report shows audiometric findings establishing bilateral hearing loss within the meaning 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Specifically, the 2018 VA examination show hearing impairment measured at 30 decibels at 1000 and 2000 Hz, 45 decibels at 4000 Hz, and 50 decibels at 4000 Hz in the right ear; and 40 decibels at 3000 Hz and 55 decibels at 4000 Hz in the left ear. See 2018 VA Examination for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus. In addition, the Veteran testified before the undersigned in July 2021, and service personnel records show, that he served in the U.S. Navy as a construction electrician. Service members in this military occupational specialty (CE, or Construction Electrician) are presumed to have been exposed to moderate acoustic trauma, according to the Department of the Navy, see Navy Enlisted Ratings Classifications spreadsheet (rec'd 6/30/2021). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (hereinafter Court) has held that VA regulations do not preclude service connection for a hearing loss where there is no finding in service treatment records of hearing loss that meets the VA's definition under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 during service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). In 2021, the Veteran testified in greater detail concerning his inservice and post-service exposure to loud noises. He also testified that he first noticed his hearing loss immediately upon his return home and, presumably, prior to any post-service noise exposure he experienced. The 2018 VA examination report shows he reported his family tells him he does not hear them properly and he has a history of putting the phone and television volume up loud. The Veteran reported he was assigned to Midway Island for 12 months during active service. His job during this time was to monitor the voltage and amperage of the generators producing electricity. Shifts were eight hours on average. Of that, he was exposed to the generators for 6 and one-half hours. Of the six generators, three were running at all times with a fourth on during peak times and two on stand-by. Occasionally, it was necessary to run a fifth generator to meet the power demand. During that same year, he testified, he was assigned to Eastern Island for a month to perform similar duty. Eastern Island provided back up power to Midway, he explained. The shifts on Eastern Island were 12 hours long and the generators were louder than those on Midway. In both locations, the monitoring requiring being in close proximity to the generators at all times because the dials and monitoring equipment were positioned right next to the generators. The Veteran testified his post-service noise exposure was not near as loud as the generators he worked with daily during active service. He attested he was a union construction man, building and stripping forms and pouring concrete. He asserted there was no real noise exposure in that job. He confirmed using a chainsaw without hearing protection, but only occasionally as a favor for his then father-in-law. Furthermore, he testified he declined to attend music concerts, as was common at that time, because he had already identified he had a hearing impairment. Given the foregoing, the Board cannot find the 2018 VA examination provides an adequate basis upon which to adjudicate the claim. First, the VA examiner denied the claim on the basis that the Veteran did not manifest hearing loss during active service. Second, the Veteran has presented new and more detailed evidence concerning 1) the noise exposure he experienced during active service, 2) the establishment of lay evidence of diminished hearing in 1969, prior to any post-service exposure, and 3), and lay testimony of continued hearing loss to the present. Finally, service treatment records present test results that cannot be compared, the entrance examination presenting audiometric findings and the exit examination presenting whisper voice measurements. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). Accordingly, additional VA examination is required. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding relevant VA treatment records. 2. Ask the Veteran to identify any records of private treatment for his hearing condition. Take appropriate action to identify these records. 3. Schedule the Veteran for VA examination with the appropriate specialists to determine the nature and etiology of bilateral hearing loss. All hearing pathology must be reported. The claims file must be reviewed in conjunction with the examination. For all diagnosed hearing pathology, the examiner must offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or more probability) that any hearing pathology: (a.) had its onset during active service, or within one year of service separation or (b.) is in any other way the result of any incident of active service. A complete rationale for each opinion provided is necessary. The VA examiner must discuss: (c.) the Veteran's description of monitoring the voltage and amperage of generators producing electricity by monitoring panels on or near three to five generators for six and one-half hours a day on Midway Island from October 1968 to August 1969 with one month of that time spent monitoring generator panels under the same circumstances on Eastern Island for 12 hours a day. (d.) the Veteran's lay statements concerning the onset of hearing impairment immediately upon returning home in 1969, noticed by his mother, and his family's continuing notice of it from then to the present (e.) the Veteran's statement that he did not go to concerts because he knew he had diminished hearing acuity and did not want to make it worse (f.) the Veteran's testimony that he was not exposed to noises greater than light construction noise after service; and that his use of a chainsaw without hearing protection was occasional (g.) Service treatment records showing audiometric testing result at entrance to service but whispered voice results at discharge, and treatment for ear conditions during active service. 4. The AOJ must ensure the required actions have been completed. 5. After the above has been completed, readjudicate the claim. If the claim is again denied, the AOJ must send the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case with sufficient time to respond. The case should thereafter be returned to the Board as appropriate. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Bakke, Lila 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.