Citation Nr: 18143156 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/18/18 DOCKET NO. 14-23 218 DATE: October 18, 2018 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. VETERAN’S CONTENTION The Veteran contends that he currently experiences tinnitus and that he has suffered from it ever since being exposed to loud noise in service. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An October 2013 VA treatment record documents that the Veteran complained of tinnitus in his left ear. Thereafter, in a January 2014 VA audiology consultation, the clinician noted that the Veteran complained of tinnitus in both ears. The Veteran stated that his tinnitus had been present for over 15 years. 2. During an April 2014 VA examination, the examiner remarked that the Veteran did not report recurrent tinnitus. 3. In the April 2014 rating decision currently on appeal, VA acknowledged that the Veteran was exposed to excessive levels of noise in service due to his military occupational specialty. 4. In a November 2014 statement, B.W.—an individual who served with the Veteran aboard the U.S.S. Decatur—described the noise exposure that both he and the Veteran experienced in service. B.W. stated that he and the Veteran would talk about the ringing in their ears after firing exercises and that he currently had tinnitus which originated in service. 5. In July 2016, the Veteran reported that he experienced tinnitus for over 15 years and that he has always had tinnitus ever since he was in the United States Navy. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1970 to August 1976. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado. Jurisdiction of the Veteran’s claims file currently resides with the Los Angeles, California RO. Service Connection for Tinnitus Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Regulations also provide that service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service precipitating disease, injury, or event; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the current disability and the in-service event. Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). As indicated above, after reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for tinnitus. In support of this determination, the Board first notes that the Veteran reported experiencing bilateral tinnitus. As a layperson, the Veteran is competent to identify tinnitus and testify as to observable symptoms such as ringing in his ears. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Next, the Board finds that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma in service. Indeed, VA already acknowledged as such in April 2014. Lastly, regarding a link between his current tinnitus and service, in July 2016, the Veteran reported that his tinnitus began in service and has continued to the present. The Board finds the Veteran to be credible in this instance and, as a layperson, he is competent to discuss the onset and continuity of his tinnitus symptoms. See Charles, 16 Vet. App. 370; Layno, 6 Vet. App. 465. As such, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND An Initial Compensable Disability Rating for Bilateral Hearing Loss In January 2014, the Veteran underwent audiometric testing at the VA San Luis Obispo CBOC. Although the conclusions of the testing were included within the Veteran’s VA treatment records, the audiogram itself—including results of puretone threshold testing at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz—was not included. As these testing results are relevant to the issue of an increased initial rating for bilateral hearing loss, they should be obtained prior to adjudication of the Veteran’s claim on its merits. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran’s most recent VA examination of record regarding hearing loss is from March 2014. In a January 2016 statement, the Veteran’s spouse reported that the Veteran’s hearing loss had worsened to the point where the Veteran could not hear her when she spoke to him while they sat next to each other in a car. As there is an indication that the Veteran’s hearing loss may have worsened in severity since the March 2014 VA examination, a new one should be provided to the Veteran on remand. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a copy of the complete results of audiometric testing performed on the Veteran in January 3, 2014 at the VA San Luis Obispo CBOC. Included within this testing should be the results of puretone threshold testing at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz for each ear. 2. After the above has been completed to the extent possible, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All appropriate tests and studies should be conducted and the results reported in detail. The examiner should discuss the current severity of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss, with particularity to the criteria for the diagnostic code (DC 6100). Specifically, the results of the audiological evaluation must state, in numbers, the findings of puretone decibel loss at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, provide the puretone threshold average, and must also state the results of the word recognition test, in percentages, using the Maryland CNC test. The examiner, in addition to dictating objective test results, must fully describe the functional effects caused by a hearing disability in the report, to include including the effect of his hearing loss on his occupational and daily functioning. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached, citing the objective medical findings leading to the conclusions. S. C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N.S. Pettine, Associate Counsel