BVA Case 22-1946: Back

VA advised him that the claim was previously denied in February 1981 and that he needed to submit new and material evidence to reopen it.

The examiner determined that the veteran's hearing loss was less likely than not related to service,R.

In July 2017, the RO denied the veteran's claim for benefits for bilateral hearing loss but did not consider entitlement to benefits for tinnitus.

Appellant Regarding the claim for benefits for CAD,the appellant argues that the Board failed to (1)address the veteran's expressly raised assertion that his service medical records were lost or incomplete;(2)ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist the veteran in obtaining records and in verifying his in-service exposure to herbicides,including Agent Orange;and (3)address his request for an examination to evaluate his heart condition.

She also contends that the Board failed to address the [v]eteran's symptoms of chest pain and unknown hemoptysis during service and failed to address materially favorable evidence of record that supports exposure to Agent Orange, id.

Finally,the appellant maintains that the Board did not address or adjudicate the veteran's claim for benefits for tinnitus,which she asserts has either been pending since August 1998 or was reasonably raised by the June 2017 VA examination report.

Finally,on the duty to assist,the Secretary asserts that any 6 Case:22-1946 Page: 7 of 12 Filed:09/16/2024 failure on the part of the Board to address the veteran's request for an examination to evaluate his heart condition is,at worst,harmless error in light of the Board's denial of the claim based on its conclusion that the veteran was not exposed to herbicides in service.

Regarding the in-service treatment for hemoptysis,chest pain, and a skin condition that the appellant contends the Board failed to address,the Secretary asserts that the appellant's position[] that these symptoms 'may be consistent with symptoms of angina'and that the [v]eteran's treatment for a skin condition may indicate exposure to Agent Orange are purely speculative and not of any probative value.