BVA9502448 DOCKET NO. 93-04 572 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUES Entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James J. Dunphy, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from January 1955 to July 1977. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from a June 1991 decision by the Houston Texas Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus will be the subject of the section titled "REMAND" below. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that the respiratory disorder is the result of service. He states that he was treated on repeated occasions for such problems while in service and that his physician has stated that there was an etiological relationship between the current disorder and the incidents of service. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the evidence supports the grant of service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. FINDING OF FACT The veteran was treated on repeated occasions for respiratory problems while in service, and a medical relationship between the incidents in service and current chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW COPD was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Initially, the Board notes that the veteran's claim is well grounded. By this, we mean that he has submitted a claim which is plausible. The Board further concludes that the VA has met its statutory duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). A determination of service connection requires a finding of the existence of a current disability and a determination of a relationship between that disability and an injury or disease incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 143 (1992). A review of the veteran's service medical records show that he was treated on a number of occasions for respiratory disorders. In February 1965, left lingular infiltrate, with possible right lower lobe infiltrate, was present on X-ray. In April 1965, treatment was required for pneumonia of the left lower lobe. Treatment was required in February 1968 for bronchitis, and a further treatment note in April 1968 gave a three-week history of coughs. In July 1970, he reported a three-week history of productive cough. The diagnosis was viral upper respiratory infection. Chest congestion was noted when the veteran was seen in January 1974. The assessment was probable COPD secondary to smoking. Treatment in December 1975 was required after complaints of productive cough and head congestion with rhinorrhea. The Board therefore concludes that the veteran meets the initial test for the grant of service connection, the presence of symptomatology during service. However, for service connection to be granted, it must be shown that there is present symptomatology and that there is a medical relationship between the incidents in service and the present disability. In this regard, the Board has noted a July 1993 letter from Charles P. Andrews, M.D. Dr. Andrews indicated that the veteran had moderately severe obstructive lung disease. He further concluded that the veteran's disability started during active duty. Furthermore, reports of VA outpatient medical records show treatment for COPD. When the reports of service symptomatology are considered in light of the symptomatology shown on outpatient treatment and the testimony offered by the veteran at his formal hearing, the Board concludes that both in-service symptomatology and post-service manifestations are shown. In light of Dr. Andrews' letter, a medical relationship between the two is shown. Accordingly, service connection for COPD is warranted. ORDER Service connection for COPD is granted. REMAND The veteran has further contended that service connection is warranted for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. In this regard, the Board notes that when the veteran underwent a service audiological examination in February 1976, the results were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 30 35 20 30 LEFT 5 25 30 30 On outpatient treatment in a VA facility in January 1991, while hearing was reported as normal, there was possible mild progression in the high frequencies. This represents a significant change from the readings in service. In light of this discrepancy, the Board concludes that further development would be appropriate before final action is taken on the veteran's claim. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the RO for the following development: The veteran should be scheduled for a VA audiological examination. All appropriate tests should be undertaken and the findings reported in detail. The audiologist should be asked to comment on the etiology of any hearing loss and tinnitus found to be present. When the requested development is completed, the RO should again review the case. If the benefits sought are not granted, the veteran and his representative should be provided with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case. They should also be given a reasonable period to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The purposes of this remand are to obtain additional information and to assist the veteran in the development of his claim. No inference should be drawn regarding the merits of the claim, and no action is required of the veteran until he is notified. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) J. U. JOHNSON 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. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.