BVA9500559 DOCKET NO. 91-23 377 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right great toe injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James A. Frost, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from June 1967 to May 1970, and from December 1980 to December 1982. He was a member of the National Guard between his two periods of active service and, also, subsequent to his second period of active service, indicating periods of active duty for training. This appeal initially arose from a rating decision in June 1990 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon. The case was docketed at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in June 1991, and the Board remanded the case to the RO in January 1992 for further development of the evidence. The case was returned to the Board in October 1994. The veteran has asserted that bilateral hearing loss had its onset during his first period of active duty and increased in severity in the 1970's due to acoustic trauma which he suffered during periods of active duty for training in National Guard units; that tinnitus had its onset in 1973 or 1974 and is also related to acoustic trauma suffered during periods of active duty for training in a National Guard unit; and that strains/injuries to the back during his first period of active duty, periods of active duty for training in the 1970's and during his second period of active duty caused abnormalities, which necessitated a laminectomy and diskectomy in 1987, after which he has continued to have residual back disability. The Board previously found that, prior to a disposition of this appeal, information should be obtained about the dates of the veteran's periods of active duty for training between May 1970 and December 1980, and records of any and all medical treatment during those times should be obtained. While this case was in remand status, the RO obtained information about the veteran's periods of active duty for training from 1984 to 1989, but not information about his periods of active duty for training from 1970 to 1980. The veteran had previously indicated that he served in the California Army National Guard in 1973 and from 1976 to 1978; in the Indiana Army National Guard in 1974 and 1975; and in the Oregon Army National Guard from 1978 to 1980. While this case was in a remand status the veteran submitted photocopies of some private and service department medical records pertaining to the period May 1970 to December 1980. Unfortunately, many of these are illegible. Moreover, the Board notes that the RO did not request the veteran's medical records from the National Guards of California, Indiana, and Oregon. The Board finds that another remand is required to allow the RO to obtain the necessary information about the veteran's periods of active duty for training in 1970's as well as his service department medical records for that period of time. Furthermore, with reference to the question of medical causation of his current bilateral hearing loss/tinnitus and back disorder, the veteran, through his representative, has requested that his claims file be reviewed by competent medical personnel, who would then offer opinions as to the likely time of onset and the etiology of his current disabilities. The Board finds that the veteran's request is reasonable under the circumstances. The Board points out, however, that at a service department ear, nose and throat service in July 1976, when a bilateral hearing loss at 4,000 Hertz was found, a notation was made "sandblasting." Further, at a VA ear, nose and throat examination in May 1990 the veteran gave a history of loud noise exposure both during military service and in civilian life, including some sandblasting and skeet shooting. This case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO, through its military records specialist, should contact the California Army National Guard, the Indiana Army National Guard and the Oregon Army National Guard and request that the dates of the veteran’s active duty, active duty for training, and inactive duty for training between May 1970 and December 1980 be provided and certified. In this respect, each agency should be requested to identify with specificity those periods of the veteran’s service between May 1970 and December 1980 which were performed in an active duty status, those which were performed while serving in an active duty for training capacity, and those periods of service which were performed in an inactive duty for training capacity. A "chronological statement of retirement points" is insufficient for these purposes unless it outlines the precise dates served, and the precise type of service performed for each period of service identified. The RO should further attempt to secure photocopies of the veteran’s personnel records, including any documents pertaining to any military occupational specialty to which he may have been assigned. Finally, the RO should attempt to obtain from the above noted sources, or from any other possible source, the veteran's original National Guard medical records for the period May 1970 to December 1980 or legible copies of those records. If the veteran has possession of the originals, he should be requested to return the documents to the custody of the United States. 2. Following the completion of all of the foregoing, the RO should schedule the veteran for VA examinations by an otolaryngologist and an orthopedist. The RO should request that the otolaryngologist, after reviewing the claims file, offer an opinion as to whether it is as likely as not that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are attributable to acoustic trauma during active duty or active duty for training rather than to acoustic trauma in civilian life. The RO should request that the orthopedist, after reviewing the claims file, offer an opinion as to whether it is as likely as not that the back pathology which required surgery in 1987 was related to strains/injuries during active duty or periods of active duty for training rather than to incidents or manifestations during civilian life. Following completion of these actions, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claims may now be granted. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be provided with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to respond thereto. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain information which is necessary for an appropriate disposition of the appeal. Appellate review of the remaining issue on appeal is deferred, pending completion of this REMAND. No action is required of the veteran unless he receives further notice. DEREK R. BROWN 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). Should the veteran desire to keep a copy of his service medical records appropr provided consistent with the provisions of the Privacy Act.