Citation Nr: 18140598 Decision Date: 10/04/18 Archive Date: 10/03/18 DOCKET NO. 16-22 283 DATE: October 4, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for right (dominant) shoulder degenerative joint disease is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his tinnitus is etiologically related to military noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1154(a), 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from April 1995 to April 1998. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015, rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that his tinnitus can be attributed to his exposure to loud noise during service. The Veteran’s service personnel records document that he was a bridge crewman, and the VA has conceded military noise exposure. His service treatment records do not contain reports of tinnitus. In a March 2013, statement in support, the Veteran explained that he was exposed to M-16s, and grenades, and claymore mines. He explained he has constant ringing in his ears. The ringing muzzles out any environmental sounds. He stated he noticed the ringing during service. He also stated that he was not aware of the fact he was entitled to benefits, otherwise he would have filed sooner. Upon VA audiological evaluation in October 2013, the examiner noted the Veteran had worked around heavy equipment since his military separation, without the benefit of ear protection. The Veteran reported noise exposure to M16’s, grenades, and other machine guns. He stated he did not wear ear protection. He operated a bridge truck, that operated with twin diesel engines that were quite loud. The examiner noted the Veteran reported tinnitus one or two years post military separation. The examiner then stated that is possible occupation noise exposure contributed to his tinnitus. The examiner concluded it is at least as likely as not that his tinnitus is associated with his hearing loss. In a December 2015, statement in support, the Veteran reported he served as a combat engineer during service, and was subjected to loud noise on a continuous basis. The Veteran has consistently asserted that he has tinnitus as a result of his time in service. A veteran is competent to testify regarding facts or circumstances that can be observed and described by a layperson. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 471 (1994) (“[C]ompetent testimony is... limited to that which the witness has actually observed, and is within the realm of his personal knowledge”). Although there is no positive opinion of record, the Veteran has conceded noise exposure, and there is competent and credible testimony indicating tinnitus since service. As such, all reasonable doubt is resolved in the Veteran’s favor, and service connection for tinnitus is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to an evaluation higher than 20 percent for right (dominant) shoulder degenerative joint disease is remanded. The Veteran contends that his right shoulder warrants a higher evaluation. He has asserted that his right shoulder condition has significantly worsened in nature. He was last examined in October 2015. At a VAMC visit in January 2016, the Veteran reported his right shoulder pain had worsened. At a November 2016 visit, the Veteran was seen with complaints of right shoulder pain. He stated he could no longer use his right arm to pull equipment at work, and now must use his left arm. He stated the pain is constant, and migrates down the right shoulder blade. In a 2018 statement in support, the Veteran’s representative relayed that the Veteran is no longer able to raise his arm from his side to 25 degrees. As evidence the representative argues that to move his right arm, he must use his left arm to assist in lifting the arm. The representative then asserts an extra-schedular rating is also warranted. The Boards find that an additional evaluation would be helpful in resolving the issues raised by the instant appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any VA and non-VA records of treatment he wishes considered for his appeal. The identified records should be sought. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to evaluate the current severity of his right shoulder degenerative joint disease. The examiner is asked to ensure that the examination includes the findings required to rate the disability under the applicable rating criteria. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Skiouris, Associate Counsel