FLATFOOT BILATERAL ACQUIRED

MELANIE J. MANN · 2026 · Case ID: A26032801

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from September 1966 to September 1968, appeals the denial of service connection for several conditions: bilateral plantar fasciitis, chronic ear infections, chronic allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma, and chronic headaches due to sinusitis. The Board denied these claims, finding that the veteran failed to provide a current diagnosis for any of the claimed conditions. The Board noted that while the veteran is competent to report symptoms, he is not competent to diagnose these complex medical conditions. The veteran's lay statements were afforded no probative weight as they did not establish a current diagnosis or a nexus to service. The Board also considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt but found it inapplicable as the evidence was persuasively against the claims. The case was remanded for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus claims due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error in the VA's medical opinion. The VA examiner's opinion regarding hearing loss was deemed inadequate because it failed to adequately address the veteran's in-service audiological testing results, which showed shifts in hearing thresholds and some degree of hearing loss, as well as the veteran's reported noise exposure and subsequent hearing loss. The tinnitus claim was remanded as it was inextricably intertwined with the hearing loss claim.

Rationale

No current diagnosis in the record; Veteran not competent to diagnose; Lay statements afforded no probative weight

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

260304-634719

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26032801
Decision Date: 04/09/26 Archive Date: 04/09/26

DOCKET NO. 260304-634719
DATE: April 9, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for chronic ear infections is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for chronic allergic rhinitis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for colon polyps is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for squamous cell carcinoma is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for chronic headaches, to include as due to sinusitis, is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current bilateral plantar fasciitis diagnosis, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of such disability prior to his filing of a claim.

2. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of chronic ear infections, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of such disability prior to his filing of a claim.

3. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current chronic allergic rhinitis diagnosis, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of such disability prior to his filing of a claim.

4. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of colon polyps, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of such disability prior to his filing of a claim.

5. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of such disability prior to his filing of a claim.

6. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of chronic headaches, to include as due to sinusitis, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of such disability prior to his filing of a claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for chronic ear infections have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for chronic allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for colon polyps have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for squamous cell carcinoma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for chronic headaches, to include as due to sinusitis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1966 to September 1968, with additional service in the Army Reserve. For his service, he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and Sharpshooter Rifle Badge. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is grateful for the Veteran's service to our Nation.

This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a higher-level review rating decision issued in January 2026 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office under the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA).

In March 2026, the Veteran filed a timely Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182) and requested the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2025 Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) rating decision that preceded the January 2026 higher-level review rating decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence
.

However, because the Board is remanding the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the readjudication of such claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

In most cases, appeals are decided in the order in which they are entered on the docket to which they are assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.800(a)(1). However, a case may be advanced on the docket (AOD) if, for example, a veteran is seriously ill, under severe financial hardship, or of advanced age (i.e., at least 75 years old). 38 C.F.R. § 20.800(c)(1). This appeal is AOD due to the Veteran's advanced age.

In Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305, 307 (2024), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that, generally, the Board may not decide an appeal before the deadline for requesting an AMA docket switch has elapsed. Specifically, 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c)(2) allows appellants to switch AMA dockets by completing and submitting a new VA Form 10182 within 60 days from when the Board receives the original VA Form 10182 or within one year from the date the AOJ mails the notice of the decision on appeal, whichever is later, unless (1) an appellant has already submitted evidence or testimony as described in 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302 and 20.303, or (2) the appellant or his or her representative has requested a waiver of the ability to request to switch dockets during this timeframe. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202; c.f. Williams, 37 Vet. App. at 313.

In the instant case, one year from the date of notification of the January 2026 rating decision on appeal has not lapsed. In a letter from the Board dated March 12, 2026, the Veteran was notified that he could waive his right to select a different review option. The Veteran has not responded to such letter. Because the Veteran's appeal is AOD due to advanced age and the Veteran did not indicate that he wished to switch dockets in response to the March 12, 2026 letter from the Board, the Board concludes that it is not in the Veteran's best interest to further delay this matter. Accordingly, the Board considers the Veteran's AOD status as a waiver of the remaining time to switch dockets.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the Court held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time he or she files his or her claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication
Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis.

2. Entitlement to service connection for chronic ear infections.

3. Entitlement to service connection for chronic allergic rhinitis.

4. Entitlement to service connection for colon polyps.

5. Entitlement to service connection for squamous cell carcinoma.

6. Entitlement to service connection for chronic headaches, to include as due to sinusitis.

The Veteran asserts that he has each of the following conditions due to active duty service: bilateral plantar fasciitis, chronic ear infections, chronic allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma below the left eye and on the right side of the face (to include residuals and scarring), and chronic headaches due to sinusitis. Specifically, on his November 2024 Fully Developed Claim (VA Form 21-526EZ), the Veteran wrote that he had chronic ear infections due to "events" in service; chronic allergic rhinitis due to particulate matter, radiation, asbestos, or bio hazards; colon polyps due to radiation, asbestos, or bio hazards; squamous cell carcinoma due to radiation, asbestos, or bio hazards; and chronic headaches due to sinusitis, the latter due to particulate matter, radiation, asbestos, or bio hazards. The Veteran did not specify to what exposure, event, or injury he believed his bilateral plantar fasciitis was due.

The Board notes that the medical evidence of record contains no current diagnosis for plantar fasciitis, chronic ear infections, chronic allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma, or chronic headaches, to include as due to sinusitis. Nevertheless, the Board has considered the Veteran's assertions that he currently has such conditions. As a layperson, he is certainly competent to report matters within his personal knowledge, such foot pain, ear pain, allergies, skin growths, and headaches. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, he is not competent to diagnose plantar fasciitis, chronic ear infections, chronic allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma, or chronic headaches, to include as due to sinusitis, because he does not possess the requisite specialized knowledge to make such medical determinations. See Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462 (2007) (explaining that while the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of simple conditions such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide a diagnosis for more complex medical questions). Accordingly, the Veteran's assertions in this regard are afforded no probative weight.

Moreover, the Veteran has not otherwise provided evidence necessary to support a current diagnosis for bilateral plantar fasciitis, chronic ear infections, chronic allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma, or chronic headaches (to include as due to sinusitis), despite bearing the burden to substantiate each element of his claim. See Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Where, as here is, there is no probative evidence indicating that the Veteran has the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Consequently, service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, chronic ear infections, chronic allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma, and chronic headaches, to include as due to sinusitis, is not warranted.

Notably, even if the Board were to consider as current disabilities any reported pain resulting in functional impairment, as a lay person, the Veteran does not have the requisite training and experience to address the etiology of such complex medical matters. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377.
is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Consequently, service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, chronic ear infections, chronic allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma, and chronic headaches, to include as due to sinusitis, is not warranted.

Notably, even if the Board were to consider as current disabilities any reported pain resulting in functional impairment, as a lay person, the Veteran does not have the requisite training and experience to address the etiology of such complex medical matters. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377. In this regard, the etiologies of the Veteran's claimed conditions involve medical subjects concerning internal physical processes extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. Specifically, such require knowledge of the musculoskeletal, auditory, immune, digestive, dermatological, and neurological systems, to include the structures therein. Therefore, such matters may not be competently addressed by lay statements. See Woehlaert, 21 Vet. App. at 462.

Furthermore, whether the events the Veteran reportedly experienced during service are in any way related to any current symptoms of plantar fasciitis, ear infections, allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma, or headaches (to include as due to sinusitis), is a matter that also requires medical expertise to determine. See Clyburn v. West, 12 Vet. App. 296, 301 (1999) ("Although the veteran is competent to testify to the pain he has experienced since his tour in the Persian Gulf, he is not competent to testify to the fact that what he experienced in service and since service is the same condition he is currently diagnosed with"). Accordingly, the Veteran's lay opinions as to the etiology of his claimed plantar fasciitis, chronic ear infections, chronic allergic rhinitis, colon polyps, squamous cell carcinoma, and chronic headaches (to include as due to sinusitis), are not competent evidence and are, consequently, afforded no probative weight.

Moreover, the Board finds that the Veteran's lay statements alone-from approximately 56 years after his separation from service-are insufficient to meet the standard to remand for VA medical examinations and/or opinions. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 86 (2006).

In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. However, as the most probative evidence of record is persuasively against the claims herein, the Board finds that the doctrine is not for application, and such claims must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Nonetheless, if the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was not available for review in the current appeal, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

REASONS FOR REMAND

For AMA cases, a remand is warranted only for correction of pre-decisional duty to assist errors or to satisfy a statutory or regulatory duty-if that would aid in substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802. In this case, a remand is warranted to correct a pre-decisional duty to assist error and to satisfy a statutory duty.

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The Veteran asserts that he has bilateral hearing loss due to hazardous noise exposure during service.

Regarding a current disability, the May 2025 VA examination report (signed in June 2025) shows that the Veteran has sensorineural hearing loss in both ears, and the AOJ conceded a current disability of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes in its June 2025 and January 2026 rating decisions.

Regarding an in-service injury, disease, or event, at his May 2025 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he used both hands to fire weapons in service and that he did not use hearing protection. As noted above, the Veteran received the Sharpshooter Rifle Badge for his service.

Regarding a nexus between the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss disability and an in-service injury, disease, or event, the Board turns to
a current disability, the May 2025 VA examination report (signed in June 2025) shows that the Veteran has sensorineural hearing loss in both ears, and the AOJ conceded a current disability of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes in its June 2025 and January 2026 rating decisions.

Regarding a nexus between the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss disability and an in-service injury, disease, or event, the Board turns to the medical evidence of record.

The May 2025 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was not as least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event, injury, and/or disease incurred during military service. The examiner's rationale was that there was no significant permanent shift in hearing thresholds beyond test variability from entrance to separation, which was objective evidence of no permanent auditory damage on active duty due to reported noise exposure. The examiner explained that there was no report of complaints or treatment for hearing decrease in the Veteran's Service Treatment Records or at the time of separation; and, although noise exposure was reported by the Veteran and the relationship of noise, auditory damage, and hearing loss was well-established, auditory damage and hearing loss were not conceded based on noise alone. The examiner found that there needed to be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise and not to some other etiology. The examiner concluded that the evidence was against a nexus in this case.

Upon review, the Board finds the medical evidence of record, to specifically include the May 2025 VA examiner's opinion, inadequate for the purpose of determining entitlement to service connection. Specifically, the examiner failed to address all of the relevant medical evidence of record. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (stating that "The Board must be able to conclude that a medical expert has applied valid medical analysis to the significant facts of the particular case in order to reach the conclusion submitted in the medical opinion"). In particular, the examiner pointed to no significant shift in the Veteran's hearing thresholds from entrance to separation. However, the medical evidence of record reflects that there were shifts in hearing thresholds while the Veteran was on active duty.

Specifically, the Veteran's July 1966 pre-induction audiological testing results were as follows:

HERTZ

July 1966 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 5 5 0 X 10

LEFT 20 10 5 X 5

On the other hand, the Veteran's January 1967 (in-service) audiological testing results (estimated based off of the Rudmose Automatic Audiometer graph) were as follows:

HERTZ

January 1967 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 5 5 10 20 10

LEFT 10 10 5 15 30

Because it is unclear whether the July 1966 and January 1967 thresholds were recorded using American Standards Association (ASA) units or International Standards Organization-American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI) units, the Board will consider the recorded metrics under both standards, relying on the unit measurements most favorable to the Veteran.

Considering the above, and where necessary to facilitate data comparison for VA purposes in the decision herein, including under 38 C F.R. § 3.385, audiometric data originally recorded using ASA units up to December 31, 1970, are converted to ISO-ANSI units by adding between 5 and 15 decibels to the recorded data as follows:

Hertz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

Add 15 10 10 10 5

After converting the relevant data to ISO-ANSI units, the results from the Veteran's July 1966 pre-induction and January 1967 (in-service) audiological testing were as follows:

HERTZ

July 1966 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 20 15 10 X 15

LEFT 35 20 15 X 10

HERTZ

January 1967 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 20 15 20 30 15

LEFT 25 20 15 25 35

Notably, the Veteran's right
5

After converting the relevant data to ISO-ANSI units, the results from the Veteran's July 1966 pre-induction and January 1967 (in-service) audiological testing were as follows:

HERTZ

July 1966 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 20 15 10 X 15

LEFT 35 20 15 X 10

HERTZ

January 1967 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 20 15 20 30 15

LEFT 25 20 15 25 35

Notably, the Veteran's right ear hearing worsened by 10 decibels at 2000 Hertz, and his left ear hearing worsened by 25 decibels at 4000 Hertz, between his July 1966 and January 1967 audiograms. Furthermore, the auditory threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss, see Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993), which indicates that the Veteran's January 1967 (in-service) audiological testing results showed some degree of hearing loss at 3000 Hertz (for the right ear) and at 500, 3000, and 4000 Hertz (for the left ear).

In spite of the above medical evidence being available for review at the time of the May 2025 VA examination, the examiner stated only that there had been no significant permanent shift in hearing thresholds beyond test variability from entrance to separation. Furthermore, the examiner failed to discuss whether the Veteran's July 1968 Separation Report of Medical Examination, which contains audiogram results reflecting equal values at every frequency, indicated that the Veteran never actually received any audiological testing at the time of separation-especially when comparing such results to the variability in his July 1966 and January 1967 audiological testing results. The July 1968 separation audiological testing results were as follows:

HERTZ

July 1968 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 0 0 0 X 0

LEFT 0 0 0 X 0

Additionally, the examiner failed to discuss the Veteran's June 1974 audiological testing results (from within six years of separation from service), which also noted some degree of hearing loss. See Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 157. These results were as follows:

HERTZ

June 1974 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 5 15 20 X 35

LEFT 5 10 15 X 35

Finally, the examiner failed to determine whether any hearing loss disability clearly and unmistakably existed prior to the Veteran's service and, if so, whether such was aggravated (i.e., underwent a chronic worsening beyond its natural progression) therein. In particular, the May 2025 VA examination report notes the following: "History for Hearing Loss: The date of onset of hearing loss is [childhood]. The circumstance of onset of hearing loss is Veteran reports recurrent ear infections, tympanic membrane perforations, and allergy related losses from childhood. The side(s) affected: both sides[.] The hearing loss has worsened over the years per Veteran."

Although the examiner suggested that there was evidence of a bilateral hearing loss condition pre-existing service, such examiner failed to determine if such condition clearly and unmistakably pre-existed service and, if so, then quantify any aggravation beyond the baseline symptomatology.

In light of the above, the Board finds that the AOJ failed to obtain an adequate medical opinion, which constitutes a pre-decisional duty to assist error. Thus, a remand is warranted to correct such error by obtaining an appropriate medical opinion to properly determine the etiology of the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss disability.

2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.

The Board finds that the AOJ's readjudication of the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss could impact his eligibility for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. See Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 177 (2009) (en banc) (explaining that claims are inextricably intertwined where the adjudication of one claim could have a significant impact on the adjudication of another claim); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Specifically, the May 2025 VA examiner (with examination report signed in June 2025) opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was at least as likely as not a symptom associated with his hearing loss. Therefore, the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is inextricably intertwined with the remanded claim herein, and adjudication of the former issue must be deferred pending the outcome of the latter issue in accordance with a statutory duty. See 38?C.F.R. §?20.802(a).

The matters are REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Forward the complete record, to include a copy of this Remand, to an appropriate clinician for an opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The need for examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the opinion. After reviewing the record, the clinician should provide an opinion as to the following:

(a.) Is it clear and unmistakable that a bilateral hearing loss condition existed prior to the Veteran's entry into active duty? In this regard, the clinician should consider the July 1966 pre-induction audiological testing results, which indicate some degree of hearing loss per Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). The clinician should also consider the May 2025 VA examination report (signed in June 2025), which notes that the Veteran reported bilateral hearing loss onset in childhood, as a result of recurrent ear infections, tympanic membrane perforations, and allergy related losses.

If it is clear and unmistakable that a bilateral hearing loss condition pre-existed service, was such pre-existing condition aggravated by the Veteran's active duty service? In this regard, the clinician should consider the January 1967 audiological testing results which suggest in-service shifts in hearing thresholds, as well as some degree of hearing loss per Hensley. Id. The clinician should also consider the Veteran's reported in-service noise exposure from using both hands to fire weapons without hearing protection, as well as his receipt of the Sharpshooter Rifle Badge. The clinician should also consider the June 1974 audiological testing results (from within six years following his separation from service), which indicated some degree of hearing loss per Hensley. Id. The clinician should also consider the May 2025 VA examination report, which notes that the Veteran reported that his hearing loss had worsened over the years.

For any aggravation found, the clinician should state, to the best of his or her ability, the baseline symptomatology and the amount-quantified if possible-of aggravation beyond the baseline symptomatology, by such aggravation.

(b.) If a bilateral hearing loss condition did not clearly and unmistakably pre-exist service, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, his military service? In this regard, the clinician should consider the January 1967 audiological testing results which suggest in-service shifts in hearing thresholds, as well as some degree of hearing loss per Hensley. Id. The clinician should also consider the Veteran's reported in-service noise exposure from using both hands to fire weapons without hearing protection, as well as his receipt of the Sharpshooter Rifle Badge. The clinician should also consider the June 1974 audiological testing results (from within six years following his separation from service), which indicated some degree of hearing loss per Hensley. Id. The clinician should also consider the May 2025 VA examination report, which notes that the Veteran reported that his hearing loss had worsened over the years.

(c.) If a bilateral hearing loss condition did not clearly and unmistakably pre-exist service, did the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss manifest within one year of his separation from active duty in September 1968 (i.e., by September 1969)? If so, please describe the manifestations of such.

2. Once the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss has been readjudicated
1974 audiological testing results (from within six years following his separation from service), which indicated some degree of hearing loss per Hensley. Id. The clinician should also consider the May 2025 VA examination report, which notes that the Veteran reported that his hearing loss had worsened over the years.

2. Once the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss has been readjudicated, readjudicate his claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.

In providing the opinions requested above, the clinician must address the lay statements provided by the Veteran regarding the onset and progression of his pre-service, in-service, and post-service symptoms.

A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided.

Melanie J. Mann

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Dumas, Rebecca H.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer