BVA9505484 DOCKET NO. 93-08 616 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for hypertension. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for defective hearing. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. W. Loeb, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February to June 12, 1951 and from June 16, 1951 to June 1955; he also had multiple periods of active duty for training and inactive duty training between 1947 and 1984. This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. The case was remanded by letter to the RO in May 1993 for a personal hearing before a traveling member of the Board, which was conducted in August 1993. The issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for glaucoma was withdrawn by the veteran at the hearing. An October 1988 rating decision denied service connection for hypertension and defective hearing, and the veteran was notified of the denial later in October 1988. He did not timely appeal. REMAND In reviewing the record, the Board notes that the veteran testified at his Board hearing in August 1993 that he had been told by the person testing his hearing at Madigan Army Hospital, during a hearing test performed sometime between 1991 and the date of the Board hearing, that he had defective hearing as a result of his exposure to acoustic trauma from flying in jet aircraft during active service, including his training periods, although the veteran did not believe that the examiner's comment was presently of record. The Board notes that the Madigan Army Hospital records referred to by the veteran are not on file, that the audiometric results in the records on file do not show defective hearing under the VA definition in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1994), and that there is no report of audiometric results since April 1983. Based on the above, the Board finds that additional development is warranted prior to final disposition of this case. Therefore, this case is being REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The veteran should be permitted to submit any additional evidence that is pertinent to the issues on appeal. He should be requested to provide the names, addresses, and dates of treatment of any physicians or facilities, including the VA, that have treated him for hypertension or defective hearing. Any medical provider identified should be asked for copies of the veteran's clinical records not currently on file. Any records obtained should be associated with the claims folder. The veteran should be asked to sign any necessary consent forms for release of his private medical records. 2. The RO should contact the Madigan Army Hospital in Tacoma, Washington and request copies of all of the veteran clinical records, especially any audiometric data, which should be associated with the claims file. 3. After the above actions have been completed, the veteran should be given an audiological examination by a certified audiologist to determine his current hearing acuity. All necessary tests and studies should be conducted, and all findings should be reported in detail. If defective hearing is found, the audiologist should give an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the defective hearing was causally related to the veteran's flying duties during active duty and active duty for training. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be fully explained. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review before examination of the veteran. 4. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted to the satisfaction of the veteran, the veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and they should be given an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, if otherwise in order. The veteran need take no action until notified. J. J. SCHULE 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).