Citation Nr: 18142659 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 16-25 193 DATE: October 16, 2018 ORDER The claim for service connection for residuals of a right foot/ankle fracture is granted. The claim for service connection for tinnitus is granted. The claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s residuals of a right foot/ankle fracture are related to active duty. 2. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Veteran has experienced ringing in the ears related to tinnitus since his separation from service. 3. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for residuals of a right foot/ankle fracture are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a). 3. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a)-(b), (d), 3.307, 3.309(a), 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 1983 to July 1991, November 1991 to March 1992, and January 1997 to August 2011. The Veteran contends that his residuals of a fracture of the right foot are related to active duty. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of right ankle osteoarthritis/osteochondral defect that began during active 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 treatment records include a December 2006 radiologic examination report that provides a diagnosis of talar dome osteochondral defect. A February 2007 report relates that the Veteran was being followed for a right heel talar dome defect causing some pain. The report of a June 2015 VA ankle DBQ shows the Veteran has a current diagnosis of right ankle osteoarthritis/osteochondral defect. As these records reflect that the Veteran’s current osteochondral defect existed during active duty, service connection is warranted. Turning to the claimed tinnitus, certain chronic diseases, including tinnitus as an organic disease of the nervous system, will be presumed related to service if they were noted as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if continuity of the same symptomatology has existed since service, with no intervening cause. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a). The Veteran contends that his tinnitus began during active duty, due to noise exposure while flying on various aircraft. His service personnel records reflect that he served as an aircraft navigator. On his May 2016 VA Form 9, he stated that he did not report tinnitus during active duty because it would have resulted in him being grounded. The Board finds that the Veteran's history of noise exposure is consistent with his duties as an aircraft navigator. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). The report of a June 2015 VA hearing loss and tinnitus DBQ reflects that as a pilot the Veteran had in-service noise exposure to jet engines. The DBQ relates that the Veteran reported bilateral and intermittent tinnitus for the past 5-10 years, without incident. The Board notes that this time period includes the Veteran's active duty. The Veteran is competent to report that he experienced symptoms of tinnitus during that period, but did not seek treatment in order to avoid grounding. His statements are credible and entitled to probative weight, as they are internally consistent and also consistent with his duties as an aircraft navigator. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). The June 2015 DBQ provides the opinion that the it was less likely than not that the Veteran's tinnitus was caused by or a result of military noise exposure. The examiner explained that there was no evidence of acoustic trauma based on normal hearing acuity, bilaterally. The Board finds that the foregoing evidence is in equipoise, and it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's tinnitus began during active duty and has continued since that time. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's tinnitus has been present since active duty and service connection is warranted. Turning to the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). According to VA standards, impaired hearing will be considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The June 2015 VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and provided diagnoses of right ear normal hearing and left ear normal hearing. The Board observes that the audiological findings set forth in the report demonstrate that the Veteran does not have bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Further, the record contains no evidence of hearing loss for VA purposes during or after active duty. While the Veteran believes that he has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence showing that the Veteran does not have bilateral hearing loss. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Davitian, Counsel