UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 07-2349
A R NOL D C. K

YHN , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. E RI C K. S H I N SEKI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided January

15, 2010)

John S

. B erry and Cha d J . W y the rs , both of L incoln, Nebr aska, w ere on the brief for the a pp e lla nt.
J o h n H

. Th ompson , A c tin g Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Co un se l; Richard May erick , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Jame s B. Cowden , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for the appe llee.
Be fore GREENE, Chief Judge , and MOORMAN a nd SCHOEL EN, Judges

. GREENE, Chief Judge : Veter an Ar nold C. Ky

hn appea ls, through counsel, a May 17, 2007, decision of the B oard of

Veter ans' Appea ls ( Boa

rd) that denied his c laim for VA se rvice connec tion for tinnitus. Record (R.) a t 1-12. Mr. Ky

hn argues that (1) the B oard failed to ensure compliance with its J anuar

y 2006 rema

nd i n s t ru ct i o ns by

failing to provide him with a VA a udiologica l examination in vi olation of Ste gall v . W est , 1 1 V e t.A

pp . 2 68 , 2 70 -7 1 ( 19 98 ); (2 ) V A f a ile d to pr ov id e h i m n o t i c e o f

h i s s c h e d u l e d a u d i o l o g i c a l e xam i n a t i o n ; ( 3 ) t h e B o ar d e r r e d b y i mp r o p e r ly dis c ounti ng e vid e nc e fa

vo ra ble to his tinnit

us c la im; and

(4 ) t he B oa rd fa ile d to pr ov ide an a de qu a te statement of r easons or

bases f or its decision. The Secre tary argues for aff irmance of the May

2007 Boa rd dec ision, asserting t h at (1) VA complied with the J anuar y 2006 Boa

rd re mand instructions beca use the e vidence of re cord de monstrates that a V A audiolog ical examination was scheduled; (2) the presumption of reg ularity attache s to the not ice of the examination and Mr. Ky hn has fa iled2

to rebut that presumption; and (3) the B oard pr operly denied se rvice connec tion because Mr. Ky hn fai l ed to attend his scheduled V A examination. For the r easons that f ollow, the Court will affirm the May 2007 Boa

rd dec ision.

I. BACKG ROUND Mr. Ky hn serve d honorably

in the U.S. Army

from May

194 5 t o Oc t ober 1946. R. at 17. I n Fe bruar

y 1998, he claimed service connec tion f or hear ing loss, whic h a VA reg ional office (RO) denied a s n o t we l l gro u n ded. R. at 87-89. In May 1999, Mr. Ky

hn submitt ed a N otice of Disag ree ment (NOD ) alongwith medical evidence from a pr ivate audiolog ist, Craig A . Foss, who op ine d that M r. Ky

hn ha d " bil a te ra l mo de ra

te to s e ve re hig h f

re qu e nc y se ns or ine ur a l he ari nglos s with decr ease d auditory

discrimination." R. at 96. Mr. Fos s attributed this hearingloss to Mr. Ky hn' s mili tary

service . R. at 96-97. I n his NOD, Mr. Ky hn also stated that he w as see king se rvice

c on ne c tio n f

or tinnit us . R. a t 96

. I n J ul y 19 99 , the R O i ssu e d a State me nt o f t

he Ca se (S OC ) continuing the denial of his hea ring loss claim. Howeve r, the S OC contained no discussion or

ana ly sis re g ard ing the e vid e nc e su bmi tte d alo ng wi th the Ma y 19 99 NO D. R. at 10 0- 07 . The RO noted that it had requested from Mr. Ky hn "e vidence to well g round his claim," but that "[n]one has be e n re c e iv e d

. " R

. a t1 0 5

. M r
. K y h na p p e a l e d t o t h e B o ar d , s t a t i n g t h a tt h e R O h a d i n c o r r e c t ly found that he f

ailed to re spond to a re q u es t for infor mation. R. at 109. I n September 1999, Mr

. Ky hn underw ent a VAaudiolog ical examination. R. at 112-13. The a udio l o g ist recor ded Mr. Ky hn' s repor ted history

of noise exposure in servic e and opined that due to the "pr esenc e of the

ve te ra n's m il it ary

no is e ex po su re an d far mi ng occu pat io nal no is e ex po su re, i t i s re aso nab le to a ssu me th at a t l eas t a p o r t i o n o f hi s h eari ng lo ss may hav e been acqu ir ed due t o m il it ary ser vi ce." Id. In Novem b er 1999, the RO issued a Supplemental SOC (SSOC) deny ing se rvice connec tion for tinnitus , but gr anting service connec tion for hear ing loss a nd assig ning a

50% rating. R. at 115-17. Mr. Ky hn did not appeal the RO' s denial of se rvice connec tion for tinnitus. See R. at 1-590. I n J anuar y 2004, Mr. Ky

hn soug ht to reope n the tinnitus claim. R

. at 2 6 2

. He provided

ano the r let ter fro m Mr . F os s, wh o, in a state me nt t o M r. Ky

hn , o pin e d th a t " [f]r om [M r. Ky hn ' s] his tor y of no ise e xpos ur e wh ile in t he mil ita ry , with out the be ne fi t of

he ari ngpr ote c tio n, it i s q uit e lik e ly thi s w a s th e be g inn ingof y our h e ari nglos s and

tinnit us ." R. at 25 8. I n M ay

20 04 , th e RO3

deter mined that Mr. Ky

hn' s evidenc e was not newand mater ial. R. at 404-08. Mr. Ky hn appea led and, in J anuar

y 2006, the Boa

rd deter mined that Mr. Foss' s J anuar y 2004 statement constituted new and mater ial evidenc e suff icient to reope n the pre viously denied tinnitus claim; the Boa rd re manded the matter f

or the RO to af

ford Mr. Ky

hn a VA audiolog ical examination " in order to a scer tain the etiology and seve rity

of any tinnitus that may

be pre sent." R. at 552. I n F e br ua ry 20 06 , th e L inc oln , N e br a sk a , RO f o rw ard e d a

n a ud iol og ic a l e xami natio n r e qu e st to the VA Ne braska

Western I owa He alth Care Sy stem. R. at 574-75. Th at ex am i n at i on was schedule d for Ma

rch 7, 2006; howe ver, Mr . Ky hn failed to a

ppear fo r t h e ex am i n ati on. See R. at 557. On Marc h 31, 2006, the RO issued an SSOC in which it de nied servic e conne ction for tinnitus based on Mr . Ky

hn' s repor ted failure to a

ppear for his Ma

rch 7, 2006, examination. R. at 577-81. I n April 2006, Mr. Ky

hn responde d to a Marc h 2006 reque st f or information by stating that he had no other information or evidenc e to g ive to VA and r equesting that VA dec ide his claim as soon as possible. R. at 587. The matter w as re turned to the B oard a nd in its May

17, 2007, decision, t he Boa rd de n ied servic e conne ction for tinnitus after finding that the re cord c ontained no probative evidenc e that Mr. Ky

hn' s tinnitus was incurred in or causally related t o service or ag g ravated by any service -conne cted disability . As part of its decision, the Boa

rd dete rmined that the Secre tary had complied with his 38 U.S.C. § 510 3 A d u t y t o assist beca use a V A audiolog y

examination was schedule d and " notification of the e x amination was mailed to the ve tera n at his corr ect a ddress of

rec ord." R. at 5. The B oard note d that, in acc ordanc e with 38 C.F.R. § 3.655, " [w] hen, as he re, entitlement to a VA be nefit ca nnot be established or confirmed without a cur rent VAexamination

or re examination and a claimant without good ca use, fa ils to report for suc h examination scheduled in conjunction with an orig inal compensation claim, the claim shall be rated on the e vidence of

rec ord." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. This appea l followed.

II. AP P LIC AB LE LA W A ND AN AL YSI S

A. Ste ga ll Violation Mr. Ky hn argues that the Boa

rd err ed by failing to e nsure compliance with its J anuar y 2006

rema nd instructions beca

use he w as not provided with a V A audiological ex amination. I n Ste ga ll , thi s Co ur t he ld t hat " a re mand by thi s Cou rt to the B oa

rd c on fe rs on

the ve te ra

n o r o the r c la ima

nt,4

as a m att er of

law , t h e ri ght t o co mp li ance w it h t he re man d o rder s. " Ste ga ll , 11 Vet.App. at 271. The Court also held that " the Secr etar y
. . . [had] a concomitant duty to ensure c ompliance with the ter ms of t he re man d" and th at "t he Bo ard i ts elf errs in fai li ng to in su re co mp li a n ce." Id. I t is substantial compliance, not a bsolute compliance , that is require d. Se e Dy me nt v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 141, 146-47 (1999)

. I n its J anuar

y 2006 rema

nd order , the B oard instruc ted the RO to make " [a] rra ng ements . . . wi th t he a pp ro pr ia te VAme dic a l fa c ili ty fo r t he ve te ra n to be a ff

or de d a VAa ud io e xami natio n in

o r d e r to a s c e rta in th e e ti o lo g y an d s e v e r it y o f an y ti n n it

u s th a t ma

y b e p r e s e n t. " R. at 552. On F e br ua ry 3, 20 06 , th e RO re qu e ste d th e VANe br a sk a Wes te rn I ow a

He a lthCare Sy ste m to sc he du le Mr. Ky hn for an audiolog ical ex amination. R. at 574. The recor d ref lects t hat that examination was schedule d for Ma

rch 7, 2006. R. at 557. Thus, VA subst antially complied with the J anuar y 2006

rema nd. Se e Dy me nt, su

pra . In a c c or da

nc e wi th t he B oa rd ' s in str uc tio ns , V A m a de arr ang e me nts for Mr. K y hn to be exami n ed at a

n appropr iate VA f

acility . Mr. Ky

hn' s failure to report f

or that examinat i o n , wi t h out a demonstration of g ood cause , does not neg ate VA ' s compliance with the Boa rd' s remand or ders. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a) (2009) ( setting f orth examples of g ood cause for missing sche duled VA e x amination).

B. Pre sumption of Regula rity –Notice of

Scheduled Examination

" Th e re is a pr e su mpt ion of re g ula ri ty un de r wh ic h it is pr e su me d th a t g ov e rnme nt o ff ic ia ls 'have p rop erl y

di sch arged t hei r of

fi cia l d ut ies .'" Ashley v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 307, 308 ( 1992) (q u o t i n g United States v. Chem. F ound., Inc., 27 2 U .S. 1, 14 -1 5 ( 19 26 )) ; see Sthe le v. Principi , 19 Vet.App. 11, 17 (2004). The Court ha s applied the pr esumption of regularity to various proc esses and proc edure s throug hout the VA administrative pr ocess, including the RO' s mailing of notice of a VA me dical examination. J o n es v
. W e st , 1 2 Ve t .App. 98, 100-02 (1998) . The pre sumption of regularity is not a

bsolute; however , it may

be over come only by

the submission of "cle ar e vidence to th e con tr ary ." Ashley , 2 Ve t.A pp
. a t 30 9. A c la ima

nt' s me re state me nt of no nr ecei pt is insufficient for that purpose. See Butler v. Principi , 244 F.3d 1337, 1340 ( Fe d. Cir. 2001). Whether clea r evide nce e x ists to rebut the presump t i o n o f re gu l arity is a question of law that the Court revie ws de novo. See Clark v . Nicholson , 21 Vet.App. 130, 133 ( 2007).5

I n this case, Mr. K

y hn contends that he never rec eived notice of his scheduled Ma rch 2006 VA audiolog ical examination and argues that the presumption of regularity cannot be applied to the fa c ts o f h is c a se to e sta

bli shtha t he re c e ive d n oti c e of

his sc he du le d e xami natio n. To su pp or t hi s
ar g u m e n t , h e p o i n t s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g a s e v i d e n c e s u f

f i c i e n t t o r e b u t t h e p r e s u mp t i o n o f r e g u l a r i t y: (1) The rec ord is devoid of any thing that ref

lects that VA mailed that notice or that he eve r re ceive d notice of the schedule d examination; (2) VA adjudicated his hear ing loss cla im e r r o n e o u s ly b e li e v ing tha t h e h a d n o t s u

b mi tt e d e v id e n c e in s u

p p o rt o f th e c la im ; an d ( 3 ) V A ma in ta in s an " Appea l Certification W orkshee t" that wa s not completed upon re mand from the Board. Appellant' s (App.) Br . at 5-8. Mr . K y hn is c or re c t th a t in

the re c or d on a

pp e a l the re is no c op y of VA ' s no tic e to him of his schedule d audiolog ical examination. See R. at 1- 590. Howeve r, there is no require ment fo r t hat document to be contained in the rec ord for the presumption of regularity to a pply . I n Bu tle r v . W

est , the appe llant argued that, because a copy of the notice of appe llate rig hts was not contained in the

rec ord, the Court could not pre sume that it was mailed. Bu tler v . W est , N o
. 9 8

- 2 0 7 3 , 1 9 9 9 WL 1063300 (Ve t. App. Nov. 8, 199 9 ), aff 'd su b n om . B utl e r v . P rin c ipi , s up ra . The Court disag ree d,

no tin g that th e re c or d c on ta ine d n oti c e of the RO ' s dec isi on , whi c h sta te d tha t the no tic e of a pp e llate rig hts was attac hed; the Court held that " [b] ased on the presumption of reg ularity , it is presumed that the [Age ncy

of Orig inal J urisdiction (AOJ)] proper ly discharg ed its responsibility and attac hed a

no ti ce of app ell ate ri ghts to th e le tt er s ent to th e app ell ant ." Id. a t *1 . A lth ou g h M r. Ky hn' s c a se may be di st in guish e d f

ro m Butler , in that here there is no document indicating that the notice of examination was attache d, the re cord doe s c o nta in th e e xa mi n a ti on canc ellation notice that states that the " ve te ra

n f a ile d to re po rt fo r e xam on 3/7 /06 , n oti fi c a tio n w a s ma ile d to 23 41 2n d A ve , B oe lus , N[ebraska ,] 68820. P OA [(Power of Attorney )]/Berr y was also notified." R. at 557. Mr. Ky hn does not contend th at t he addr ess listed was not that of his re sidence at the time. See App. B r. at 1-16. F ur the r, in Augus t 20 09 , th e Cou rt or de re d th e Secret ary

to p ro vid e the Cou

rt wi th information conc erningthe re g ular proc ess by which VA notifie s vetera ns of sche duled VA examinations. I n response , the Secre tary indicates that the RO prepa res a n examination request that is electronic ally

comm u n i ca t ed b y

the RO to the VA medic al ce nter (V AMC) in whose primar y
ser vi ce area t he v ete ran r esi des . S ecret ary 's R esp on se at3. Th e ex ami nat io n reque st is given to "a6

scheduling cler

k who inputs the exa m i n ati on reque st into t he Automated Me dical Information Ex chang e [AMI E] sy stem" a nd then, " [u] sing the in f

o r ma tion from the AMI E sy stem, the scheduling cler k elec tronica lly

g ener ates a

letter to the ve tera

n which informs him of the sc heduled e x amination, in clu di ng it s t im e andlo cat io n. " Id. at 3-4. The Secre tary states that the " examination noti fications

are g ener ated throug h the Veter ans I nformation Sy stems and Tec hnology Arc hitecture . . . softwar e" and the a utomaticall y

g ener ated letter

is then mailed from the V AMC to the vetera n and his/her POA, if any

. Id. The Sec reta ry notes that " [b] eca

use th e l et t er i s elec tronically g ener ated by

the Outputs O pti on s c omp ute r s y ste m pr og ra m, a ha rd c op y of the le tte r i s n ot r e ta ine d b y the VA MC or f il ed i n t he cl aim s fo ld er." Id. The Sec reta ry further states that " [w] hile a file c opy of the orig inal letter c an not be pr oduced, in a n eff ort to provide a c omplete re sponse to t he Court' s order , the S ecret ary has been abl e to regenerat e fro m elect ron ic recor ds a cop y of th e let ter th at was s ent ." Id. at 2. Attache d to the Secre tary ' s response is a letter dated Aug ust 28, 2009, that states that Mr. Ky hn was sche duled for a

VA examination on March 7, 2006. Id ., Ex hibit 3. Acc ording ly , beca

use the re g ular pra ctices of VA do not include maintaining a hard copy of the veter an' s notice of his/her sc heduled VAexamination, the absence o f an y s uch copy from the claims file ca

nnot be used a s evidenc e to demonstrate that that notice was not m ailed. He re, the

rec ord re flec ts that the RO followed the re g ular process for scheduling an examination and notify ing the appe llant of that examination. The recor d establishes t hat on Fe bruar y 3, 2006, the R O re quested that the VAMC sche dule the appe llant for an a udiology examina t i o n
. R. at 574-75. On Fe bruar y 11, 2007, a sche duling c lerk at the VAMC enter ed that examination reque st into AMI E. See Dec laration of J o Ellen Ba sh, Compensa tion a nd Pension Progr am Mana g er at the VA Ne braska

Wes te r n I o w a C ar e S y s t e m
. B e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e R O f o l l o w e d it s proce dure f

or re questing and scheduling a medica l examination and because the examination

c anc e llatio n n oti c e state d th a t no tif ic a tio n o f t

he e xami natio n w a s ma ile d to the ve teran at hi s addre ss, it may

be pre sumed that the VAMC elec tronically g ener ated and mailed Mr. Ky hn notice of the sche duled examination at his address of recor d. Thus, beca use (1) the re cord c ontains evidenc e that the a

udiologica l examination was requeste d and that reque st was enter ed into AMI E, and (2) the examination cance llation notice states that notification of the e x amination was mailed to the veter an at his address, a s in Butler it may be pre sumed that the Secr etar y discharg ed his duties7

by mailing to Mr. Ky

hn notice of th e s ch ed uled examination and did in fact mail that notice. See Bu tle r and Ashley , both supra. Con c e rn ingMr . K

y hn ' s argume nt t

hat VAa dju dic a te d h is h e ari nglos s c la im e rr on e ou sly be lie vin g that he ha d no t su bmi tte d e vid e nc e in su

pp or t of that c la im, the e vid e nc e of re c or d r e ve a ls that, in response to the R O' s Aug ust 1998 denial of service connec tion for hea ring loss, Mr. Ky

hn filed an N OD and submitt ed medica l evidence reve aling a diag nosis of hear ing loss that wa s believed to be re l at ed to servic e. R. at 96-99. The RO issued an SOC stating that it had not re ceive d any

e vid e nc e fr om Mr

. Ky

hn in re sp on se to a

re qu e st f or inf or ma tio n a ft e r i ts Augus t 19 98 de nia l of his claim. R. at 105. Mr. Ky

hn informed the RO that he had submitted evidenc e with his NOD a nd the R O s u b s eq u en t l y co rr ec t ed i t s d ec i s i o nan d aw ar d eds er v i ce co n n ec t i o nfo r h ea ri n g l o s s
. Al t h o u gh Mr. Ky hn is corre ct that the R O adjudicated hi s claim assumingthat he had not submitted evidenc e in support of i t, that err or pertains to the R O' s adjudication of his claim for he ar ing los s and not the tinnitus claim pre sently

at issue. Mr. Ky

hn has not persua ded the Court that prior a djudicative er rors in a se pa rate ma tte r c on sti tut e c le ar e vid e nc e to r e bu t th e pr e su mpt ion of re g ula ri ty a pp lic a ble to h is tinnitus claim. Mr . K y hn a lso c on te nd s that the a bs e nc e of a c omp le te d " Ap pe a l Ce rt if ic a tio n Wo rk sh e e t" in conjunction with his remanded c laim is evidence th at rebuts the presumption of regularity . He maintains that the lack of th i s d o cument demonstrates that VA did not adjudicate his claim in a "nor mal" f ashion. Ther e is containe d in the rec ord an " Appea l C er t i fi cation Worksheet," dated April 15, 2005, prior to the Board' s J anuar y 2006 rema

nd decision. R. at 535-37. Thus, it appe ars that Mr . K

y hn is arguin g that V A h a d a du ty to c omp le te a

se c on d " Ap pe a l Ce rt if

ic a tio n Wo rk sh e e t" prior to re turning his claim to the Boa rd af ter its J anuar

y 2006 rema

nd decision. When a claimant indicates the desire to appea l an unfavorable RO decision t o the B oard, the VAAd jud ic a tio n Pr oc e dure s Ma nu al (M21 -1 MR) pr ov ide s f or a se ri e s o f s te ps fo r V A t o ta ke to

ensure that the case i s rea dy for appeal. Upon review of the claims folder, a decision review of fice r (D RO ) " ve ri fi e s th a t all iss ue s on app e a l hav e be e n de c ide d, " de te rm ine s whe the r the " a pp ro pr ia te developme n th as b ee ni n i t i at edan d p ro p er l y d i s p o s edo f, an d

co mp l et es t h e c er t i fi ca t i o nwo rk s h eet." M21-1MR, pt. I , ch. 5, sec. F ( 2007). Ther eaf ter, the D RO completes a " VA F orm 8, Certification of A pp eal ." Id. Se c tio n 1 9. 35 of tit le 38 , Code of F e de ra l Reg ulatio ns , re qu ir e s tha t a VA Fo rm 88

must be completed in eve ry appea l to the Boa

rd. 38 C.F.R. § 1 9.35 (2009) ( providing that afte r "r ece ipt of a timely

Substantive Appeal, the [AOJ] will certify the ca se to t h e Bo ar d

. . . . Certi f ic a ti o n is a c c o mp li s h e d b y th e c o mp le ti o n o f V A F o r m 8 )

. H o w e v e r , n o th in g in the

re g ulatio ns g ov e rn ingthi s is su e re qu ir e s VA to pr e pa re a se c on d VA F or

m 8 f or re mand e d c la ims that are re tur

ne d to the B oa

rd . Ind e e d, 38 C.F .R. § 1 9. 38 pr ov ide s: When a ca se is rema

nded by the Board of Veter ans' Appea ls, the ag ency of orig inal jurisdiction will complete the additi onal development of t he evidence or proce dural development r equire d. Following completion of the development, the case will be revie wed to dete rmine whet h er t he additional deve lopment, toge ther with the e vid e nc e wh ic h wa s pr e vio us ly of re c or d, su pp or ts the a llo wa

nc e of a ll b enefits soug ht on appeal

. I f so, the appe llant and his or her repr esentative, if any , will be pr omp tly inf

or me d. I f any be ne fi ts so ug ht on a pp e a l re ma in de nie d fo ll owi ng th is revie w, the ag ency of original jurisdi ction will issue a S upplemental S tatement of the Case conc erningthe additional deve lopment pe rtaining to those issues in accor dance with the provisions of [38 C.F.R.] § 19.31 of t his part. Following the 30-da y period a llo we d f or a re sp on se to t

he Sup ple me nta l Stat e me nt of the Ca se purs ua

nt t o Ru le of Prac tice 302, par ag raph ( c) ( § 20.302(c) of this chapter ), the case will be returne d to the Boa rd for further appellate proce ssing unless the appeal i s withdrawn or revie w of the re sponse to the Supplemental Statement of the Case results in the allowanc e of a ll b e ne fi ts s ou g ht on appea l. R e mand e d c a se s w ill no t be c los e d f or fa ilure to respond to the Supplemental Statement of the Case. 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 (2009). Fur ther, the M21-1MR e stablishes steps VA must take reg ardingclaims rema nded fr om the Boa rd. I t does not r equire VA to pr epar e a se cond VA F orm 8 or an a dditional "Appe al Certification Worksh e e t" p r io r

to r e tu r n in g th e matt e r

to th e B o ar d

. Rath e r , if e v id e n c e is r e c e iv e d

o nthe

re m anded claim, but the benef it sought ca

nnot be g rante d, the M21-1MR indicates to " note the following in the ' Remarks' block of VA Form 8, Certification of Appeal filed in the cla ims folder:

" Determ ination of [date shown in the "Date" bl ock] confirmed ." M21- 1MR, pt. I , ch. 5, sec. G (2005). I f no evide nce w as re ceive d, the R O i s to note t he following in the " Remarks" block of the VAF or m 8: " Theap

pe lla nt, an d h is/

he r re pr ese nta tiv e, h as fai le d to su bm it e v ide nc e re qu este d in [ Bo ar d ] remand within the prescri bed period, and the attache d claims folder is returned for appellate consideration on the basis of the evide nce of re cord. " Id. Acc ording ly , beca

use there is neither a regulatory require ment that VA complete an " Appea l Certification W orkshee t," nor do VA' s internal proce dures r equire that VA under take suc h action a9

se c on d ti me wh e n a

c la im is on re mand , the a bs e nc e of a se c on d " Ap pe a l Ce rt if

ic a tio n Wo rk sh e e t" in t he re c or d c ann ot r ise to t he le ve l of

c le ar e vid e nc e to r e bu t th e pr e su mpt ion of re g ula ri ty

conce rning notice of the schedule d examination. As such, the evidenc e off ere d by Mr. Ky

hn does not constitute c lear evidenc e to r ebut the presumption of re g ularity and, thus, it is presumed that VA mailed to him notice of his schedule d Marc h 2006 VA audiolog ical examination. Fur ther, e ven if the Court we re to a ssume that these claimed irregularities occur red as alleg ed by Mr. Ky hn, the Court w ould still not be persua ded that these irregularities, coupled tog ether , are sufficie nt to rebut the presumption of regularity

. Although i n Sthele, supra, this Court held that multipl e irre g ularities involved with the appellant's appea l coupled with his asser tion that he had not

rec eived a

copy of a B oard de cision co n s t i t u t ed clear a nd unmistakable evide nce to r ebut the pr e su mpt ion

of re g ula ri ty , th is c a se is d ist inguis ha ble fr om Sth e le . I n Sth e le , the Court found that the appe llant's c laims file contained documents re lated to his son's c laim for depe ndent educ ational assistance ( D E A ) th a t w e r e im p r o p e r ly a d dr e s s e d

to th e a p p e ll an t a s th o u g h h e w e r e th e c la im a nt in t he DE A c la im a

nd that so me of the se do c ume nts we re ma ile d b y the RO to t

he a pp e lla nt at hi s son' s addre ss, which was diff ere nt from the addr ess the appe llant had p ro v i d ed VA in connection with his service -conne ction claims. Sth e le , 19 Vet.App. at 17-18. These irregularities left the Court "w ith serious doubt as to whether the B oard' s decision was ma iled to the appe llant at his last known add res s. " Id

. at 18. Her e, howe ver, be cause the Court has found that ther e is a re g ular proc ess for mailing notice of sche duled examinations and there is e vidence that VA followe d this process, Mr. Ky hn' s other arguments, even if the Court w ere to consider them irr eg ularities, do not leave the Court with a "se rious doubt" as to w hether the notice of the schedule d medical examination w as m ail ed to the appellant at his last known address. Id. As such, the e vidence offe red by Mr. Ky hn of other ir re g ula ri tie s cou ld not c on sti tut e c le ar ev ide nc e to re bu t the pr e su mpt ion of re g ula ri ty and , th us , it is presumed that VAmailed to him notice of his schedule d Marc h 2006 VA aud i o l og ical examination. Havingpresumed that notice was inde ed mailed, a nd f in d ing that Mr. Ky

hn had not pre sented

" g oo d c a us e " fo r his fa ilure to re po rt fo r t he sc he du le d e xami natio n, the B oa rd a dju dic a te d th e c la im

on the evidence of rec ord and deter mined that service connec tion was not warr anted. See 38 C.F .R. § 3 .6 55 (a ), (b) (pr ov idi ngfo r a c tio ns to b e take n w he n a n a pp e lla nt, " wi tho ut g oo d c a

us e , f a ils to10

re po rt " fo r a

VAme dic a l e xami natio n)

. Se c tio n 3. 65 5( b) of tit le 38 , Cod e of F e de ra l Re g ulatio ns , instructs that for re opened c laims, "[w]hen a claimant fa ils to report fo r an examination . . ., the

c la im s ha ll b e de nie d. " 38 C.F .R. § 3 .6 55 (b ). Th e Court thu s h old s that th e B oa

rd wa s c or re c t in denying, a

nd indeed wa s compelled by § 3.655(b) to deny , Mr. Ky hn' s tinnit us claim. See 38 C.F .R. § 3 .6 55 (b ); se e als o W

oo d v . Derw in sk

i, 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 ( 1991) (" The duty to assist is not alway s a one- way

street." ). Moreove r, eve n if Mr. Ky hn did not rec eive notice of his schedule d Marc h 2006 VA examination, he was made awa re of that examination and the conseque nces of his failure to re port to it in t he R O's M ar ch 2 0 0 6 S SOC. R. at 580. Therea fter, Mr . Ky hn indicated that he had no further information to submit. At no t ime prior to the B oard' s May 2 0 0 7 d ec i sion did Mr. Ky hn assert t h at he had not r ece ived notice of his scheduled VAexamination, despite having the opportunity

to do so. C. Boar d' s Statement of Reasons or B ases Th e B oa rd ' s d e te rm inatio n o f s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n is re vie we d und e r the " c le arl y e rr on e ou s" standard of

revie w set for

th in 38 U.S.C . § 7261(a) (4). S e e R o s e v . W

e st , 11 Vet.App. 169, 171 (1998). The ref

ore, " if there is a

' plausible' basis in the rec ord for the fa ctual dete rminations of the [B oa rd ]," the Court

c ann ot o ve rt

ur n th e m e ve n if

it m ig ht n ot h a ve re a c he d th e same c on c lus ion in the first instance

. Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 53 (1990). As with all of its decisions, the Bo ar d i s re qu i re d

t o i n cl u d e i ni t s d ec i s i o na w ri t t en s t at em en to f t h e re as o n s o r b as es fo r i t s fi n d i n gs
and c on c lus ion s o n a ll m a te ri a l is su e s o f f a c t and law p re se nte d o n th e re c or d; t hat st a te me nt m

us t be a de qu a te to e na

ble an a pp e lla nt t o und e rs tand

the pr e c ise ba sis fo r t

he B oa rd ' s d e c isi on , a s w e ll

as to fac ilitate informed re view in this Court. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); A l ld a y v . B ro wn , 7 V e t.A pp . 5 17 , 5 27 (1 99 5) ; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 56-57. Mr . K y hn argue s th a t th e B oa

rd ' s d e nia l of

se rv ic e c on ne c tio n is n o t su pp or te d b y an a de qu a te state me nt o f r e a so ns or

ba se s b e caus e the B oa

rd imp ro pe rl y

dis c ounte d e vid e nc e fa

vo ra ble to h is claim and f

ailed to take into considera tion cer tain lay statements. Mr. Ky

hn' s argument, howeve r, overlooks the r eg ulatory

provisions gove rning the dispositi on of reope ned claims when a claimant fa ils to r e po rt

fo r a me dic a l e xaminatio n. Se c tio n 3 .6 55 of tit le 38 , Co de of

F e de ra l Re g ulatio ns , pr ov ide s in

pe rt ine nt p art :11

(a) Gene ral. When entitlement or c ontinued entitlement to a bene fit cannot be established or confirme d without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without g ood cause , fails to r eport for such examination, or reexamination, action shall be taken in ac cor d an ce with para g raph ( b) or ( c) of this section as appropr iate. (b) Or igina l or reope ned cla im, or claim for increa se. When a c laimant fails to repor t fo r a n e xami natio n s c he du le d in c on jun c tio n w ithan o ri g ina l c omp ensat ion c la im, the claim shall be rate d based on the evidenc e of r ecor d. W hen the e xamination was schedule d in conjunction with . . . a r eo p en ed claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed . . . the claim shall be denie d. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. Acc ording ly , upon finding that Mr. Ky hn had not demonstrate d g ood cause for fa ili ngto r e po rt

fo r h is s c he du le d V A a

ud iol og ic a l e xami natio n, the B oa rd sh ou ld h a ve de nie d h is reope ned claim for tinnitus in a ccor dance with § 3.655 rathe r than a djudicatingthe tinnitus claim on the merits. Althoug h the B oard' s adjudicatio n o f Mr. Ky hn' s claim on the merits contra dicted the regulatory

require ment to de ny the claim, the B oard' s ultim ate c onclusion–that service connec tion fo r t i n n i t u s i s n o twa rr an t ed

– i s n o tcl ea rl y

erro n eo u s an d , t h u s , an y i n ad eq u ac i es i nt h e B o ar d 's state me nt o f r e a so ns or

ba se s f or its de nia l of

Mr . K y hn ' s c la im o n the mer it s wou ld co ns tit ute

no np re jud ic ia l e rr o r

b e c a u s e un de r § 3. 65 5( b) he wa s p ro pe rl y de nie d s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n f or tin nit us
. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)( 2) (pr oviding that Court shall take due ac count of rule of pre judicial err or); Conway v. Principi , 3 53 F .3 d 1 36 9, 13 75 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 4) ; see als o S ab on is v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 426, 430 (1994) (holding that wher e law a nd not evidence is disposi tive, claim should be denie d or

a pp e al ter mi nat ed be c a

us e of la c k o f l e g a l me ri t or

la c k o f e nti tle me nt u

nd e r t he law) ; 38 C.F .R. §3.655(b). D. Seconda ry Service Connection Mr. Ky hn further

assert s t h at the B oard e rre d by failing "to c onsider whe ther the se rvice

connec tion bilateral hea

ring loss, rated at 50[ %], was a sourc e of a g g ravation." App. B r. at 13. The Court construes thi s as an a rg ument that the B oard f

ailed to consider

service connec tion for tinnitus

on a sec ondary

basis. A di sability may be service c onnecte d on a sec ondary basis by demonstrating that that disability

is either (1) "pr ox imately due to or the r esult of [an alrea dy ] servic e- co n necte d disease or injury ," 38 C.F .R. § 3.310, or (2) a g g ravated by an alr eady

service -conne cted disea se or injury , "w hether

or not the additional impairment is itself a sepa rate disease or injury cause d by the

ser vi ce-co nn ect ed co nd it io n, " Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 439, 448 ( 1995) (e n banc)

.12

Th e Se c re tary

a sse rt s th a t be c a

us e Mr . K

y hn ha s r a ise d th is m a tte r f

or the fi rs t ti me in h is bri ef t o the Court, the B oard did not er r in failing to addre ss whether he wa s entitled to service

connec tion for hea

ring loss based on ag g ravation. The Court ag ree s. Although Mr . Ky hn now

c on te nd s th a t th e B oa

rd sh ou ld h a ve c on sid e re d wheth e r h is s e rv ic e -c on ne c te d h e ari nglos s ag g ravated his non-servic e-c onnecte d tinnitus , he point s to nothing in the record de monstrating that the i ssue of whether his hearingloss ag g ravated his tinnit us was re asonably raised. A ccor dingly , he has not demonstrated that it was err or for the B oard not to addr ess that issue. Se e Hi lk e rt v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 145, 151 ( 1999) (e n banc) (appe llant has burden of demonstrating err or); c om pa re So nd e l v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 218, 220 ( 1994) (whe n issue is not reasona bly raised , Bo ard is not require d to "c onduct an ex erc ise in prog nostication") , with Car pe nte r v . W

est , 11 Vet.App. 140, 146- 47 (1998) (Boa

rd m ust revie w all issues rea sonably raised by liberal re ading of appe al). F urther, the Court's jurisdiction is limit ed to consider ation of final de cisions of the Bo ard. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 72 52 (a) (Co urt has ex clu si ve j uri sd ict io n t o rev iew fi nal Boarddeci si on s), 72 66 (a) ( c la ima nt m us t

a pp e a l f ina l de c isi on

of B oa rd to o bta in C ourt ' s r e vie w) . A c c or din g ly , the Court de c lin e s to a dd

re ss Mr. Ky hn' s argument in this reg ard. See Ma gg itt v . W est , 202 F.3d 1370, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (issues pre sented for

first time on appea l ma

y be addre ssed, disreg arde d, or rema nded back to B oard for f urther de velopment).

III . C ON CL USI ON Up o n c o n s i de ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g ana ly sis , th e re c or d o n a pp e a l, a nd the pa rt ie s' ple a din g s, the May 17, 2007, Boa

rd dec ision is AFFI RMED.