Citation Nr: 22018160 Decision Date: 03/28/22 Archive Date: 03/28/22 DOCKET NO. 17-58 231 DATE: March 28, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1995 to August 1997. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a July 2016 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. The rating decision, inter alia, denied service connection for hearing loss. The Veteran's Notice of Disagreement (NOD), which is broadly interpreted to include the claim of service connection for hearing loss, was received in July 2017. The Statement of the Case was issued in August 2017, and the Veteran's VA Form 9, substantive appeal to the Board, was received in October 2017. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran asserts that he has had bilateral hearing loss since service, as the result of in-service noise exposure. Specifically, his DD 214 lists is his military occupational specialty (MOS) as electrical/mechanical equipment repairman. His July 1997 separation examination showed mild left ear hearing loss of 45 in the 6000 Hz, with an improved reading at follow up testing. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for his claim in September 2017, during which it was determined that his hearing was within normal limits. During the examination he reported experiencing temporary hearing loss and tinnitus since service. However, the VA examiner found no current hearing loss and did not address the Veteran's contentions. Moreover, since the September 2017 VA examination, the Veteran has been granted service connection for tinnitus and in-service noise exposure has been conceded. Given that noise exposure has now been conceded, coupled with the Veteran's claims that he has had temporary hearing loss and tinnitus since service, and the July 1997 audiometry readings showing mild hearing loss at 6000 Hz, a remand is required to obtain another VA examination to determine whether the Veteran has hearing loss that meets the criteria for a hearing loss disability for VA purposes under 38 C.F.R § 3.385. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Accordingly, the matter is remanded for a new VA examination and medical opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding VA treatment records; and, after obtaining proper authorization, associate all outstanding private medical records identified by the Veteran as pertinent to his claim. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an audiologist to determine the current nature, and likely etiology of any hearing loss. The claims folder, to include a copy of this remand must be made available to and reviewed by the audiologist prior to completion of the opinion, and the opinion must reflect that the claims folder was reviewed. The audiologist should opine as to whether the Veteran has a hearing loss disability for VA purposes pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, and if so, whether it is at least as likely as not that it (1) began during active service; (2) manifested to a compensable degree within one year after discharge from service; OR (3) is otherwise related to an in-service injury, or disease, including the Veteran's noise exposure in service and/or his tinnitus. Why or why not? In providing this opinion, the VA examiner is requested to address the Veteran's contentions that he experienced temporary hearing loss, as well as the July 1997 audiometry readings. The VA examiner is reminded that the Veteran is competent to report his medical history, including when his symptoms began, and such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. In remanding this matter, the Board makes no finding, implicit or otherwise, as to the credibility of the Veteran's assertions. Neither the Veteran's credibility nor any lack thereof should be presumed in this remand. L. B. CRYAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kuksova, Kseniya 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.