BVA9500708 DOCKET NO. 93-05 567 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Fort Harrison, Montana THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss in the left ear. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss in the right ear. 3. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus in the left ear. 4. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus in the right ear. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Connolly, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from August 1939 to June 1945 and from May 1946 to July 1960. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 1992, rating decision of the Fort Harrison, Montana, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which denied entitlement to bilateral hearing loss. The notice of disagreement was received in October 1992. In an October 1992 rating decision, entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus was denied. A statement of the case as to the issue of entitlement to bilateral hearing loss was sent to the veteran in October 1992. A VA Form 1-9 was received in December 1992 which the Board accepts as a substantive appeal as to the issue of entitlement to bilateral hearing loss and as a notice of disagreement as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus. A statement of the case as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus was sent to the veteran in January 1993. The veteran's representative submitted an informal hearing presentation dated in June 1993 which the Board accepts as a substantive appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus. REMAND The veteran was afforded a VA examination for organic hearing loss in February 1992. At that time, the examiner noted that the veteran was a World War II veteran with significant noise exposure in combat as well as a crew member in heavy bombers with no noise exposure in civilian life. The examination indicated that the veteran currently has bilateral hearing loss, however, the examiner noted that the type of hearing loss could not be determined without further testing. There were no findings regarding whether or not the veteran has tinnitus. The VA has a duty to assist in the development of the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). The duty to assist includes additional VA examination by a specialist, when recommended. Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). The Board finds that the veteran should be afforded another audiological examination. The examiner should review the veteran's service medical records and, in particular, his February 1960 retirement examination which recorded his audiometric results in ASA units which should be converted to ISO units prior to the consideration of those results. The examiner should also perform audiometric testing and specifically determine if the veteran currently has hearing loss of the left and/or right ear and, if so, the type of hearing loss. The examiner should also determine if the veteran has tinnitus of either ear. Under the circumstances of this case, additional development is necessary in order to fulfill the VA's duty to assist. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The veteran should be afforded an audiological examination. The examiner should review the veteran's service medical records and, in particular, his February 1960 retirement examination which recorded his audiometric results in ASA units which should be converted to ISO units prior to the consideration of those results. The examiner should also perform audiometric testing and specifically determine if the veteran currently has hearing loss of the left and/or right ear and, if so, the type of hearing loss. The examiner should also determine if the veteran has tinnitus of either ear. Taking into account the veteran's entire medical history, including his broken left eardrum, his flight experience, and the findings of high frequency hearing loss in 1954, the examiner should state medical opinions as to whether a hearing loss or tinnitus of either or both ears began in service or is the result of trauma incurred in service. 2. The RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the left ear and entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the right ear. If the action taken is adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case that contains a summary of the relevant evidence and a citation and discussion of the applicable laws and regulations. He should also be afforded the opportunity to respond to that supplemental statement of the case before the claim is returned to the Board. 3. The RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus of the left ear and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus of the right ear. If the action taken is adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case that contains a summary of the relevant evidence and a citation and discussion of the applicable laws and regulations. He should also be afforded the opportunity to respond to that supplemental statement of the case before the claim is returned to the Board. No action is required of the veteran until further notice. The Board expresses no opinion, either factual or legal, as to the ultimate determination warranted in this case pending completion of the requested development. G. H. SHUFELT 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) (1993).