BVA9505509 DOCKET NO. 93-11 319 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for bilateral hearing loss. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. O'Brien, Counsel REMAND The veteran had periods of active service from May 1967 to January 1971 and from February 1975 to July 1992. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee, which granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and assigned a noncompensable rating, effective August 1, 1992, the day following the veteran's discharge from service. Additionally, service connection was granted for tinnitus, for which a 10 percent rating was assigned. The veteran was accorded an audiologic examination by VA in October 1992. Audiologic testing showed speech discrimination ability of 74 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear. It was noted that the test results indicated the need for follow-up by the ear, nose, and throat clinic due to the veteran's asymmetrical hearing loss. However, no other post service medical evidence is of record. In the veteran's substantive appeal dated in May 1993, the veteran complained about the adequacy and accuracy of the October 1992 VA audiologic examination. He described a significant impairment in his work in the security field. The veteran has applied for vocational rehabilitation and a counseling folder has been establish. Records compiled in connection with the veteran's application for vocational rehabilitation may contain data reflecting how the veteran's impaired hearing affects his employment in the security field and should be associated with the records assembled for appellate review. Additionally, the Board notes that the United States Court of Veterans Appeals in a recent decision, Smith (Wilfred E.) v. Brown, No. 93-478 (U.S. Vet.App. Dec. 20, 1994), emphasized the need to consider the applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) when a veteran claims that his hearing loss has a profound effect on his employment. In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of the Board that further development is necessary. It appears that other records showing treatment may be available. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provide the names and addresses of all health care providers who have treated him for his hearing loss since service discharge, specifying the approximate dates of treatment, if possible. Then, after any necessary authorization has been obtained from the veteran, the RO should obtain copies of any treatment records identified by him. The RO should also obtain and associate with the claims folder copies of any outpatient treatment records pertaining to the veteran at the VA Outpatient Clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, since 1992. 2. All records compiled in connection with the veteran's application for vocational rehabilitation, including the counseling folder, should be obtained and added to the records assembled for appellate review. 3. Thereafter, the veteran should be scheduled for a complete audiometric evaluation to determine the current severity of his hearing loss. The evaluation should include testing of pure tone criteria at 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hertz and speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC test. Employment information, such as details as to how the hearing loss affects the veteran's job performance, should be recorded. The claims folder should be made available for review by the examiner. 4. After the above actions have been completed, the case should again be reviewed and adjudicated by the RO. The rating should reflect consideration of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). If the veteran's claim is not resolved to his satisfaction, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case which include a summary of additional evidence and the reasons for the decision. The veteran and his representative, if one, should be afforded the applicable time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence and ensure that the veteran is afforded all due process of law. The Board intimates no opinion, either factual or legal, as to the ultimate conclusion warranted in this case. GARY L. GICK 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 deter- mination. 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).