BVA9506404 DOCKET NO. 93-11 126 DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for left ear defective hearing. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeanne Schlegel, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1953 to February 1955. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) from a September 992 rating determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In its September 1992 determination, the RO denied service connection for hearing loss with tinnitus. The Board has limited the issue to entitlement to service connection for left ear defective hearing on the basis of the veteran's testimony at a hearing at the RO in February 1993 and correspondence from the veteran dated in March 1993. The veteran has clearly and unequivocally stated that he is not seeking service connection for hearing loss of the right ear or for tinnitus. REMAND Initially, the Board finds that the veteran's claim is "well- grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). The hearing testimony provided by the veteran and post service audiological examinations indicate that this claim is plausible. Id. Once it has been determined that a claim is well grounded, the VA has a statutory duty to assist the appellant in the development of evidence pertinent to the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). There are no service medical records in the claims folder. The National Personnel Records Center reported in February 1992 that no medical records were on file at that facility and that any records which might have been on file were apparently destroyed by fire in 1973. The Court of Veterans Appeals has held that when a veteran's service medical records are unavailable, VA's duty to assist is heightened. Milostan v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 250, 252 (1993). We find that for the reasons set forth herein, the VA has a duty to assist the veteran, as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (a). The veteran has testified that during basic training in the Summer of 1953 while firing his weapon an a firing range he sustained acoustical trauma which resulted in a ringing in his ears and a "deadening" of his left ear. He related that there was no bleeding, that the ear drum was not punctured, and that the ringing in his ears resolved after a few days. He stated that sometime after this incident he sought medical attention but was informed that the condition was not "considered serious and it was dropped at that point." The veteran reported that this acoustic trauma resulted in a permanent loss of hearing acuity in the left ear as was evident during service and thereafter by the fact that he could not hear the ticking of a watch in his left ear. He related that he was not exposed to loud noises after his release from service and that he did not seek medical attention for this condition after his release from service until 1989, when audiometric findings revealed a severe sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear versus only a moderate sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear, a configuration consistent with hearing loss due to noise exposure. The RO has made several attempts to obtain the veteran's service records or to obtain other data which would verify the veteran's account that he sought medical attention for hearing problems during service. These attempts have been unsuccessful. The Hearing Officer at the RO made no specific finding as to the veteran's credibility. The Board finds that his testimony is entirely credible and consistent with the documented history. Accordingly, to the extent that the veteran has testified as to facts about which he is competent to testify, his account is accepted and is sufficient to establish that the events happened as he has related them. That is, he did experience acoustic trauma during basic training while on the firing range, he did experienced problems with ringing in his ears for a few days thereafter, as well as "a kind of deadening of my ear," the left ear, and he did seek medical attention and was told that "it wasn't considered serious." In addition to these facts, which were not challenged by the RO Hearing Officer, the evidence also establishes that the veteran did not seek medical attention for hearing loss after his release from service until June 1989, more than 34 years later. Sig- nificantly, the earliest post-service evidence of hearing loss, the results of the June 1989 audiologic evaluation, have not been obtained and added to the records assembled for appellate review. The earliest pertinent evidence of record consists of a report of a September 1991 audiologic evaluation. This report reflects the history of inservice noise exposure as related by the veteran at the February 1993 hearing and contains an opinion by a clinical audiologist that the asymmetry measured between ears may be related to the inservice incident of noise exposure. The veteran's claim has been denied by the RO on the grounds that it would be speculative to pin point the hearing loss in one ear to an incident in service which occurred in mid 1953 in the absence of any evidence of treatment for hearing loss for approximately 25 years after service. In the Board's opinion, particularly in view of the opinion expressed in the September 1991 audiologic evaluation, a more definitive medical opinion on this matter would be helpful. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board believes that further development is necessary to ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to for the following development: 1. The RO should obtain a copy of the audiologic evaluation performed at the Somerset Medical Center on June 23, 1989 (see report of September 1991 audiologic evaluation from St. Clares Riverside Medical Center). 2. When a copy of the June 1989 audiologic evaluation has been added to the claims folder, the claims folder should be referred to a medical specialist for an opinion as to the degree of probability that the one incident of acoustic trauma described by the veteran during the Summer of 1953 resulted in a permanent hearing loss in the left ear. The specialist should identify the facts considered controlling and set forth the rationale for the conclusion reached. Thereafter, the case should be reviewed by the RO. If the benefit sought is not granted, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued to the appellant and he should be provided an opportunity to respond. The claims folder should then be returned to the Board for further review, if necessary. By this action, the Board intimates no opinion legal or factual, as to the ultimate disposition warranted as to this specific issue. 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 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).