BVA9505480 DOCKET NO. 93-15 789 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1950 to October 1952. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of March 1993 from the Seattle, Washington, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and residuals of status-post mastoid surgery. A notice of disagreement was received in April 1993, and the RO issued a statement of the case in May 1993 which included these issues. In the June 1993 substantive appeal, the veteran indicated continued disagreement with the RO's rating decision and stated that he should be awarded service connection for hearing loss. The RO determined that the veteran did not appeal the issue of service connection for residuals of status-post mastoid surgery, and this issue was not certified for appeal. The local representative's statement in support of the appeal was received within the applicable time period for perfecting appeals, but is not completed, signed, or dated. The April 1994 statement of the national representative includes the issue of service connection for left ear mastoiditis. The evidence raises a question as to the adequacy of the substantive appeal with respect to the issue of service connection for residuals of status-post mastoid surgery. The RO should provide notice of the issue regarding adequacy of the substantive appeal, and a period of sixty days following the date on which such notice is mailed to present written argument or to request a personal hearing to present oral argument on the question. 38 C.F.R. § 20.203 (1994). REMAND In his July 1992 application for disability compensation, the veteran reported post-service medical treatment for ear problems by Gordon Thomas, M.D., 101 2nd Avenue, N.E., Auburn, Washington, 98001, from 1952 to the present. In July 1992, the veteran submitted VA Form 21-4142 which also includes Dr. Thomas' address and indicates treatment from 1952 to the present. In a February 1990 application for disability pension, the veteran reported post-service medical treatment for hearing problems by Dr. Tolan in 1950, and indicated that the present address was not known. In the history of disabilities section, he listed pre-service treatment for hearing problems and mastoid surgery in the fall of 1950 at the Virginia Mason Hospital, Seattle, Washington. The veteran also indicated treatment for hearing by Dr. Thomas in 1970. It does not appear that these records have been requested. The evidence discloses that the veteran's service records were partially destroyed by fire in 1973. It also discloses that the RO requested and obtained copies of all available records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). In July 1992, the representative reported that the veteran had obtained copies of his service medical records from the NPRC in April 1990, and these records are completely different from the service medical records currently contained in the claims folder. It is not clear from the evidence whether the RO conducted a search for additional service medical records. Under the present circumstances, the Board finds that additional development of the evidence is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The veteran should identify the names and addresses of any medical care providers, VA or otherwise, who have treated him for ear or hearing problems since 1950. The veteran has reported post- service medical treatment for hearing and ear problems by Gordon Thomas, M.D., 101 2nd Avenue, N.E., Auburn, Washington, 98001, from 1952 to the present; Dr. Tolan, address unknown; and pre-service treatment for hearing problems and mastoid surgery in the fall of 1950 at the Virginia Mason Hospital, Seattle, Washington. The veteran should be requested to provide any additional information regarding the current location of any of these records. After obtaining any needed authorization from the veteran, the RO should obtain copies of all these records. 2. The RO should request the veteran to submit copies of the additional service medical records in his possession which the representative claims are different from the service medical records currently contained in the claims folder. The RO should certify through the NPRC that all available service medical records have been forwarded. The RO should request the NPRC to specifically determine whether there are any additional service medical records showing treatment for ear problems at Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, dated from December 1950 to March 1951. The RO may request the veteran to provide additional details. 3. If necessary, the veteran should then be afforded a VA audiology examination in order to determine the nature and extent of any current hearing problems. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations, and should include all appropriate tests and evaluations. The examiner should review the evidence in the claims folder and express an opinion as to the etiology of any hearing loss and the degree of probability, if any, that such was incurred coincident with active service. It is essential that the claims folder, including a copy of this remand decision, be made available for review by the examiner prior to the examination. 4. The RO should review the record and ensure that all the above actions have been requested or completed. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran in any way, he should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which summarizes the pertinent evidence, fully cites the applicable legal provisions not previously provided, and reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision. He should then be afforded the applicable time period to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no action until he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).