Citation Nr: 18141723 Decision Date: 10/11/18 Archive Date: 10/11/18 DOCKET NO. 16-40 835 DATE: October 11, 2018 ORDER Service connection for hearing loss is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s hearing loss had onset in service. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus had onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a) (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty from October 1964 to February 1968, with service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. The Veteran died in April 2018, and his surviving spouse has since been substituted as the appellant for purposes of processing the claims to completion. See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010 (2017); see also Notification Letter (August 27, 2018). Service Connection Prior to his death, the Veteran sought service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus, which he contended began in service and were recurrent since that time. All three elements of service connection are established by the competent and credible lay and medical evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran had a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, reports ongoing tinnitus and suffered acoustic trauma when exposed to extreme loud noise in service while aboard ships and in the Republic of Vietnam: citing exposure to artillery, grenades, mortars, and various high caliber guns. See, e.g., VA treatment record (December 1, 2014); VA examination (February 2015). Thus, the first two criteria have been met. Further, the competent, credible evidence of record shows that his current hearing loss and tinnitus began during service and were recurrent since that time. The Veteran reported that he first noticed hearing loss and tinnitus during service and that it has gotten worse over the years. See id. The Veteran was competent to report the onset and continuation of his hearing loss and tinnitus symptoms and the Board finds his reports credible, particularly as they were consistent with the circumstances of his service and made to an audiologist for treatment prior to filing service connection claims. See VA treatment record (December 1, 2014); Claim (December 30, 2014); Administrative Remarks regarding Naval Support Activity in Danang (December 15, 1986) (citing the Veteran for exceptionally meritorious service “despite extremely adverse climatic conditions, [to include] . . . the continuous exposure to attack from hostile forces at all facilities”); see also Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 73 (1997). Additionally, the Veteran’s private audiologist opined that it is at least as likely as not that his hearing loss and tinnitus were related to service based on his credible reports of hearing loss and tinnitus since his in-service noise exposure. See Audiology Opinion (February 5, 2015). Finally, while a February 2015 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s current hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to service, such opinion carries no probative value as it does not contemplate the Veteran’s competent, credible report of symptoms since service. Accordingly, because the competent, credible evidence shows that the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus had their onset in service, service connection is warranted. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joshua Castillo, Counsel