BVA9504861 
DOCKET NO.  92-10 939     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston,
Massachusetts

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for bilateral defective
hearing.

2.   Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty with the Army Air Force from
January 1943 to September 1945.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter the Board) on appeal from a rating decision of
December 1990, from the Boston, Massachusetts, Regional Office
(hereinafter RO).

REMAND

The attention of the RO is directed to the Board's recitation of
pertinent evidence in the earlier remand of this case in February
1994.  We requested that the veteran be accorded an ear
examination and an audiological examination and that the
otolaryngologist provide a medical opinion as to the existence of
a causal relationship between the reported in service acoustic
trauma and air pressure changes and the subsequent development of
bilateral defective hearing and tinnitus.

The requested examinations were conducted in March 1994.  The ear
examination resulted in a diagnosis of hearing loss and tinnitus.
The audiometric examination revealed that the veteran did not
have recognizable defective hearing in the left ear at that time
pursuant to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1994).  However,
he did have recognizable defective hearing in the right ear and
constant high pitched tinnitus was also noted.  Against this
background, the physician conducting the ear examination failed
to express a medical opinion on the question posed by the Board.

The veteran's representative took exception to this in his
presentation in February 1995.  The Board further notes for the
RO's guidance that ever since the decision of the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals in Austin v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 547
(1994), the Board has not used the opinions of its own medical
advisers in deciding appeals.  As such, reliance on medical
opinions of VA physicians who examine appellants has become much
more important than it was prior to August 1994.

This case is Remanded for the following action:

The claims folder should be referred to a
VA otolaryngologist for review and an
expression of opinion as to the existence
of a causal relationship between the
claimed in-service acoustic trauma and air
pressure changes and the current defective
hearing in the right ear and tinnitus.  The
examining physician should review the
entire claims folder and his attention
should be directed to the February 1994
remand order for background purposes.

Upon completion of the requested action, the case should be again
reviewed by the rating board.  If the veteran's claims remain
denied, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued,
and the veteran and his representative, should be given a
reasonable opportunity in which to respond.  Thereafter, the case
should be return to the Board for further appellate review.

          BRUCE E. HYMAN
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be
assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination.  This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals.  This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board
on the merits of your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).