Citation Nr: 18139900 Decision Date: 10/01/18 Archive Date: 10/01/18 DOCKET NO. 12-29 162 DATE: October 1, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Tinnitus is etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Tinnitus was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from September 1963 to July 1966, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. This case was previously before the Board in July 2017, at which time the Board denied the Veteran’s claim on appeal. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a May 2018 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion of the parties vacating the July 2017 decision and remanding the case to the Board for action consistent with the Joint Motion. The Veteran has asserted that he has tinnitus as a result of acoustic trauma sustained in active service. Specifically, the Veteran has reported that during active service he was exposed to hazardous noise while serving in a war zone in the Republic of Vietnam. The Board finds that the Veteran’s report of noise exposure during service is consistent with his service and the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS). Therefore, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. Service treatment records (STRs) do not show that the Veteran reported complaints of tinnitus during active service. However, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced tinnitus while he was in active service and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report when he first had symptoms of tinnitus and that they have continued since that time. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. In June 2011, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological evaluation. At that time, the examiner diagnosed tinnitus. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s tinnitus was due to in-service noise exposure. In this regard, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits at the time of his separation from active service and there was no significant shift in his hearing acuity during service. The Board finds the June 2011 VA medical opinion inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the Board notes that the examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his tinnitus. As the opinion is not adequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the Veteran is competent to identify tinnitus, and his statements have been found credible. The Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma in active service. The VA medical opinion of record is not a competent opinion against the claims. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported tinnitus during and since his active service. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is at least in equipoise. Accordingly, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mariah N. Sim, Associate Counsel