Citation Nr: 18141487 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 16-26 343 DATE: October 10, 2018 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Service connection for bronchitis is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, tinnitus is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1973 to December 1974. 1. Service Connection: Tinnitus The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to acoustic trauma in service from his military occupational specialty (MOS). The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus that is related to service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The Veteran’s service records list his as MOS auto mechanic. The Board finds acoustic trauma to be consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s MOS and military duties. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Therefore, the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma during active service. Moreover, resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that his diagnosed tinnitus is related to in-service acoustic trauma. Despite the lack of reports of pertinent symptoms shown in the service treatment records and the conflicting statements of record regarding the onset of tinnitus, the Board applies the benefit of the doubt doctrine and finds that the Veteran’s tinnitus began during his active duty service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. In his February 2015 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran stated he had ringing in his ears during service. The Board finds the Veteran’s statement as to the in-service onset of his tinnitus to be credible. Thus, his lay statements regarding experiencing tinnitus, its in-service onset, and its continuation since service constitute competent evidence in support of the claim. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002); see also Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). The Board is aware that the October 2014 VA examiner provided a negative nexus opinion against the Veteran’s claim. In weighing this medical opinion against the Veteran’s competent and credible lay assertions, the Board resolves all doubt in the Veteran’s favor and finds the Veteran’s lay evidence establishes a nexus between his current tinnitus and active duty. As the weight of the evidence reflects that the Veteran experienced tinnitus in service, that he has been diagnosed as having current tinnitus, and that his tinnitus has continued since service, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). REASONS FOR REMAND 2. Service Connection: Bronchitis A remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the claim and to afford the Veteran every possible consideration. The Veteran contends that he has bronchitis due to exposure to brake dust in service by virtue of his MOS. May 2014 VA treatment records reported an impression of two weeks of bronchitis. See Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). However, at other times, VA treatment records reported that the Veteran’s lungs were clear with no signs of wheezing, labored breathing, or crackles. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of service connection for bronchitis because the evidentiary record is unclear as to a current diagnosis of bronchitis and no VA examination has been conducted. The Board finds that the May 2016 opinion obtained is inadequate upon which to adequate the appeal. As the medical evidence in the record is unclear as to the existence of a current diagnosis of bronchitis during the pendency of this appeal, the Veteran should be provided another opportunity to identify medical treatment records, whether private or VA, that further his claim that he has a current disability. After obtaining additional medical treatment records, a VA examination should be provided for an examiner to ascertain if the Veteran had bronchitis during the pendency of the appeal; and if so, is it etiologically related to service based on the Veteran’s MOS and exposure to brake dust. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain up to date VA treatment records. 2. Ask the Veteran to identify any private provider that treated him for bronchitis either immediately prior to the filing of his claim or during the pendency of this appeal, and have him complete a VA Form 21-4142 for these records. Make two requests for the authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile.   3. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosable bronchitis. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the Veteran’s MOS of mechanic and lay contentions that he was exposed to brake dust in service. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Dellarco, Associate Counsel