BVA9506022 DOCKET NO. 93-08 726 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Melissa F. Marquez, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had verified active service from October 1951 to October 1954, with approximately one prior year of unverified service. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from an April 1992 rating decision of the Winston-Salem, North Carolina Regional Office (hereinafter RO), of the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA), which denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REMAND An administrative record indicates the appellant attended Flying School for pilot training from September 1950 to October 1951, and for instructor training for jets from December 1953 to March 1954. Such records further indicate he was awarded, in part, the Air Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. An initial application for disability compensation was filed in 1991. On such application, the appellant noted that he was diagnosed with, but not treated for bilateral hearing loss during service. The appellant's examination upon separation from service dated in October 1954 is the only service medical record currently associated with the claims folder, and was reportedly sent to the RO by the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1974. The request for information form used in obtaining that examination report is not on file, so it is unknown whether all service medical records were requested. There was no audiogram conducted as part of this examination, but whispered voice testing was 15/15 (normal) bilaterally. In February 1992, the RO requested copies of the appellant's service medical records, including any Surgeon General's Office (SGO) extracts, from NPRC, and submitted National Archives (NA) forms 13055 and 13075 completed by the appellant in January 1992 in support thereof. Upon review of the completed NA form 13055, it is noted that the appellant reported increased hearing loss while stationed at Perrin Air Force Base in Sherman Texas, but specifically indicated no treatment related thereto. In April 1992, NPRC responded to the aforementioned RO's request with the following statement: "If there was no treatment, no records or reports would have been taken. No SGO's available." It is not clear from this response whether the NPRC attempted to obtain any other available service medical records. It is also unclear from the records where the service medical records might be. The current record contains private audiograms dated in November 1971 and June 1992, both indicating a bilateral hearing loss disability. See 38 C.F.R. 3.385 (1994); Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 155, 159-60 (1993) (citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI, VIa, VII (1994)). The November 1971 record does not, however, have any clinical history that may have been recorded associated with it. An attempt to locate additional records that may have been created at the time of this audiogram will be undertaken. Subsequently, during a July 1992 personal hearing, the appellant and his representative stated that while serving as a pilot with the Air Force, the appellant received several audiograms, and was found to have hearing loss. The VA has a duty to assist the appellant in developing facts pertinent to a well grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1994). That duty includes obtaining medical records and examinations where indicated by the facts and circumstances of an individual case. See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). The Board agrees with the appellant's representative that the appellant's service medical records are necessary for an adequate decision on appeal, and that an attempt should be made in order to obtain such records. In addition, the appellant has not been afforded a VA audiological examination in order to determine the nature and severity of his bilateral hearing loss. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following developments: 1. The RO should again request the assistance of the National Personnel Records Center and attempt to obtain copies of the appellant's complete service medical and personnel records dated from October 1950 to October 1954. The RO should also request NPRC to verify the appellant's first period of service reported from October 1950 to October 1951. The RO should submit copies of the completed NA forms 13055 and 13075, as well as DD form 214, in support thereof. In particular, the RO should request copies of routine audiograms or physical examinations performed in conjunction with flight training or duty. If such records are reported to be unavailable from NPRC, the RO should then attempt to obtain such records through alternative sources by contacting the individual Air Force bases listed by the appellant on VA form 13075. 2. The RO should, with the assistance of the appellant as indicated, attempt to obtain any other records associated with the 1971 audiometric examination, to include any recorded clinical history that may be available. If the attempt to obtain records is unsuccessful, the veteran and his representative should be notified. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 3. If and when appropriate, the appellant should be contacted and advised that he may submit alternate forms of evidence to support his claim, such as statements from service medical personnel and "buddy" certificates or affidavits, and should also be provided with an explanation of how service records are maintained, why a search that was undertaken constitutes a reasonably exhaustive search, and why further efforts may not be justified. See Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 261 (1992); Lanyo v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 465 (1993). 4. The RO should then schedule the appellant for an audiological examination to determine the nature, etiology, and severity of any bilateral hearing loss currently manifested. In particular, the examiner is requested to determine whether the appellant's current bilateral hearing loss, if found, is more likely attributable to reported acoustic trauma reported during his active wartime service, intercurrent causes, the aging process, or any other factors. All indicated tests and studies should be done. If these matters cannot be medically determined without resort to mere conjecture, this should be commented upon in the report. The examiner is further requested to adequately summarize the relevant history, as well as all current objective clinical findings and subjective complaints, and describe in detail the reasons for all medical conclusions. The examination should be conducted and reported in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review purposes prior to the examination and the entry of the opinions requested. 5. Following conclusion of these actions, the RO should readjudicate the issue of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In reviewing the evidence, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1994) should be considered and discussed where appropriate. In order to avoid undue delay in this case, the RO should make certain that the instructions contained in the REMAND decision, detailing the requested development, have, in fact, been substantially complied with. When this development has been completed, and if the benefit sought is not granted, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, after compliance with appropriate appellate procedures, including issuance of a supplemental statement of the case. It is requested that this statement specifically set forth the reasons and bases for the decision. No action by the appellant is required until he receives further notice. The Board intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate disposition warranted in the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, pending completion of the requested development. MICHAEL D. LYON 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) (1994).