Citation Nr: 22018709 Decision Date: 03/30/22 Archive Date: 03/30/22 DOCKET NO. 17-36 666 DATE: March 30, 2022 REMANDED The appeal for service connection for hearing loss is remanded. The appeal for service connection to tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Navy from February 1973 to February 1977. The appeal was previously remanded in February 2019. Unfortunately, for the reasons explained below, another remand is required. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection to tinnitus. As an initial matter, there is no dispute that the Veteran has current diagnoses of hearing loss and tinnitus. See e.g. March 2014 VA examination report. The appeal was remanded in February 2019 so that any outstanding service treatment records would be associated with the file. In the February 2019 Remand, the Board noted that the March 2014 VA audiological examiner based a negative nexus opinion, in pertinent part, on five in-service audiograms but that those audiograms had not been uploaded to the Veteran's electronic case file. The electronic file only included service personnel records and the service entrance examination report. In accordance with the February 2019 Remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) attempted to obtain the outstanding records. See March 2019 Request for Information. The records remained unavailable. In this regard, the Records Management Center informed the AOJ that all available service treatment records had been uploaded in December 2013. See January 2020 correspondence. In a July 2020 letter, the AOJ informed the Veteran that all efforts to obtain the outstanding records had been exhausted and offered the Veteran an opportunity to submit any service treatment records that he had, but none were forthcoming. As the Board is unable to verify the service treatment records relied upon by the March 2014 VA examiner, the Board is unable to rely upon the opinion in determining whether service connection is warranted. Further, the Board finds that the March 2014 VA opinion may have been based upon inaccurate facts other than the in-service audiogram results and treatment. In this regard, the March 2014 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran wore double ear protection during service. However, in the Veteran's March 2015 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran explained that he did not wear ear protection constantly. He also explained that all four years of service were spent with considerable noise exposure. He reported that the first two years of his service were spent at an installation where fighter jets practiced touch-and-go landings all night long, approximately 100 feet from the communication truck where the Veteran worked. The Veteran reported that even with ear protection, the jets were very loud. The Veteran also reported that the last two years of his service were spent on a ship that was in dry dock. He reported that the shipyard noises were constant and seemed worse than the jets performing touch-and-go landings. He reported that one of the worst noises was the paint chipping noise which sounded like guns going off. He reported that the noise went on every day but that the only people who wore ear protection were the people doing the work, but not the Veteran or others like him who had other jobs. He reported that he was also the ship's Gyro Compass Technician and that the gyros produced a constant, very high pitched whine. He reported that he never wore hearing protection while working in the space with the gyro. The Board notes that the AOJ has already conceded that the Veteran was exposed to significant noise during service. See May 2017 Statement of the Case. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that another VA opinion should be obtained to address whether the Veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus are related to noise exposure during service. While on remand, any outstanding VA treatment records should also be obtained and associated with the Veteran's electronic file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records dated from January 2017. 2. Following completion of item 1, forward the Veteran's claims file to a qualified examiner for an addendum opinion addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner should address the following question: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater possibility) that the diagnosed hearing loss had its onset during active duty, was aggravated by active duty, or is otherwise etiologically related to his active duty service? (b.) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater possibility) that the diagnosed tinnitus had its onset during active duty, was aggravated by active duty, or is otherwise etiologically related to his active duty service? (c.) In answering these questions, the examiner should note that VA has determined that the Veteran has a current diagnoses of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and was exposed to hazardous noise levels during service. The examiner should also consider and address the Veteran's statements in the March 2015 notice of disagreement regarding his noise exposure in service. (d.) If an examination is needed, one should be scheduled. Complete rationale must be provided for any opinion offered. J. NICHOLS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Donna D. Ebaugh, 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.