Citation Nr: 18145085 Decision Date: 10/26/18 Archive Date: 10/26/18 DOCKET NO. 16-16 342 DATE: October 26, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having not been received, reopening of the claim of entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. New and material evidence having not been received, reopening of the claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. New and material evidence having not been received, reopening of the claim of entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a traumatic brain injury is denied. New and material evidence having not been received, reopening of the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. New and material evidence having been received, reopening of the claim of entitlement to service connection for a lung disability, to include shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a thoracic spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hemorrhagic cystitis is denied. Entitlement to service connection for prostatitis is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lung disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A September 2005 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claim to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. The evidence received since this rating decision includes the Veteran’s lay statements, which are redundant of evidence that was of record at the time of this last final denial. 2. A November 2009 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claim to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The evidence received since this rating decision includes the Veteran’s lay statements, which are redundant of evidence that was of record at the time of this last final denial. 3. A November 2009 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claim to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury, and the residuals thereof. The evidence received since this rating decision includes an April 2015 VA examination and the Veteran’s lay statements, which are redundant of evidence that was of record at the time of this last final denial. 4. A November 2009 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claim to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The evidence received since this rating decision includes the Veteran’s lay statements, which are redundant of evidence that was of record at the time of this last final denial. 5. A November 2009 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claim to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for a lung disability. The evidence received since this rating decision includes VA medical records, which indicate the possible existence of a current lung disability. This evidence was not previously submitted, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 6. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a thoracic spine disability caused by an in-service disease or injury. 7. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a lumbar spine disability caused by an in-service disease or injury. 8. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has bilateral hearing loss that is related to service. 9. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has tinnitus that is related to service. 10. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hemorrhagic cystitis. 11. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of prostatitis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability has not been submitted. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 2. New and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension has not been submitted. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. New and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury, and the residuals thereof, has not been submitted. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 4. New and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder has not been submitted. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 5. New and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a lung disability has been submitted. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a thoracic spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 8. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. 9. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. 10. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hemorrhagic cystitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 11. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostatitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1978 to August 1990. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2013 and March 2015 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon. In February 2018, the Veteran, his mother, and brother appeared and testified at a Travel Board Hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. The Board notes that there is an outstanding December 2016 motion to advance the case on the docket (AOD) based on homelessness. There was no documentation associated with this AOD motion. An AOD motion may be granted if, among other factors, the Veteran is under “severe financial hardship.” 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). At this time, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate financial hardship. The record reflects that the Veteran lives in one of his mother’s houses. Additionally, in May 2015, during a homelessness screening, the Veteran reported that he was living in stable housing and was not worried about housing for the near future. Accordingly, the Veteran’s AOD motion is denied at this time. See id. However, the Board notes that this determination does not prevent the Veteran from filing another AOD motion, and submitting relevant supporting evidence, at a later date. New and Material Evidence In general, decisions of the RO and the Board that are not appealed in the prescribed time period are final. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105, 7266; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.1100, 20.1103. A finally disallowed claim, however, may be reopened when new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. For purposes of reopening a claim, the credibility of newly submitted evidence is generally presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). The threshold for determining whether new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim is low. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). In determining whether this low threshold is met, VA should not limit its consideration to whether the newly submitted evidence relates specifically to the reason why the claim was last denied, but instead should ask whether the evidence could reasonably substantiate the claim were the claim to be reopened, to include by triggering the Secretary’s duty to assist or consideration of a new theory of entitlement. Id. at 117-18. Cervical Spine Disability The Veteran contends that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claims for entitlement to service connection for a cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine disability has been submitted. The Board notes that a previous August 2011 rating decision denied entitlement to service connection for lumbar and thoracic spine disabilities. In an October 2011 statement, the Veteran appeared to disagree with the RO’s denial of his claims. Further, in November 2011, the Veteran filed a claim to reopen his spine disability claims. The Board finds that this October 2011 statement should have been interpreted as a notice of disagreement to the determinations made in the August 2011 rating decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. Accordingly, as the August 2011 rating decision regarding the Veteran’s claims for entitlement to service connection for his lumbar and thoracic spine disabilities did not become final, these claims were pending at the time the Veteran filed his additional November 2011 claim, and will be decided on the merits below. However, regarding the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability, the Board notes that there is a pervious final rating decision of record. Specifically, a September 2005 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability, as there was no evidence that this disability was incurred or aggravated during service. As this decision was not challenged, it has become final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. The Veteran filed a new claim for entitlement to service connection for his spine disabilities (to include cervical spine) in October 2010, which was denied in an August 2011 rating decision. As previously discussed, he filed an additional claim for his spine disabilities in November 2011, which was denied in the April 2013 rating decision currently on appeal. The Board notes that no new and material evidence has been submitted after the September 2005 rating decision. The Veteran’s representative claimed during the February 2018 Board hearing that the Veteran’s testimony was sufficient new and material evidence to reopen the Veteran’s claim. However, the Board notes that the Veteran’s statements, regarding his cervical spine disability, were identical to the statements he made in his initial June 2004 claim for service connection. Specifically, the Veteran claimed, both in his June 2004 statement and during the February 2018 Board hearing, that he injured his neck when he was hit across the bridge of the nose with a hatch during service. Although this February 2018 testimony was material to the Veteran’s claim, it is redundant of the evidence that was of record at the time of the last final denial. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and material evidence has not been received, and the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability may not be reopened. Hypertension The Veteran contends that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension has been submitted. The Veteran was last denied entitlement to service connection for hypertension in a November 2009 rating decision, which found that no new and material evidence had been submitted since the previous last final rating decision in March 1992. The Board notes that the March 1992 rating decision denied service connection as there was no evidence of an in-service disease or illness. As the November 2009 rating decision was not challenged, it has become final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. The Veteran filed a new claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension in January 2015, which was denied in the March 2015 rating decision currently on appeal. The Veteran has not submitted any additional evidence since the last prior final decision substantiating the in-service incurrence element. The Veteran claimed during the February 2018 Board hearing that he had high blood pressure in service that continued to this day. However, the Board notes that the Veteran’s complete service treatment records were already of record at the time of the November 2009 rating decision. Additionally, these statements by the Veteran were the same as those he made during his initial December 1991 claim, and are thus redundant. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Finally, the Board notes that the Veteran’s representative also claimed during the February 2018 Board hearing that the Veteran’s current high blood pressure is secondary to his acquired psychiatric disorder. However, as the Veteran is not currently service-connected for an acquired psychiatric disorder, and, as will be discussed below, new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder has not been received, analysis of service connection based on a secondary basis is not warranted. Accordingly, the Board finds that reopening of the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension is not warranted. Traumatic Brain Injury The Veteran claims that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury has been submitted. The Board notes that this disability was originally denied in an October 1999 rating decision as no well-grounded claim had been made. In February 2006, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for residuals from a traumatic brain injury. The Veteran was last denied entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury, and the residuals thereof, in a November 2009 rating decision, as no new and material evidence had been submitted since the last prior final rating decision. As the November 2009 rating decision was not challenged, it has become final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. The Veteran filed a new claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a traumatic brain injury in November 2011, which was denied in the April 2013 rating decision currently on appeal. Evidence submitted since the November 2009 rating decision consists of an April 2015 VA examination and the Veteran’s statements during the February 2018 Board hearing. The Board notes that a subsequent statement of the case was issued by the RO in April 2016 where this new evidence was taken into consideration. The Board finds that although evidence is new, it is not material to the Veteran’s claim and is redundant to the evidence already of record at the time of the last prior final decision. Specifically, the April 2015 VA examination detailed how the Veteran reported that he suffered from a traumatic brain injury as a result of a hatch falling on his head in service. He also reported being the victim of a robbery while in service. The VA examining neurologist noted that the Veteran provided a very vague and disjointed history. The examiner opined that it was more likely than not the case that the Veteran did not experience a mild traumatic brain injury in service. Specifically, there was insufficient medical evidence to support that the Veteran experienced a head injury sufficient to cause residuals. There was evidence of a small nose laceration, but there was no loss of consciousness. Further, the examiner indicated that this mechanism of injury is not consistent with the Veteran’s account of having his head pinned under the hatch for an extended period of time. Finally, there was no evidence of the claimed residuals of a traumatic brain injury such as imbalance or disequilibrium on examination. There was no history of headaches that could be traced to the nose injury. The Board finds that this examination does not constitute new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the Veteran’s claim, as it is redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last previous denial, and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran’s claim. See Shade, 24 Vet. App. at 117. Specifically, the Veteran’s contentions are the same as the ones he made previously. Additionally, the statements the Veteran made during the April 2015 VA examination were similar to the ones he made during an April 2005 VA neurological examination. After a thorough review of the Veteran’s claims file, which included service treatment records, the April 2005 VA examiner found there to be no objective evidence of an organic cognitive disorder or of significant imbalance. Thus, as the April 2015 examination was redundant of the April 2005 examination of record, and does not lead to the reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran’s claim, the Board finds it is not new and material evidence. Finally, the Veteran’s representative argues that the testimony the Veteran gave during his February 2018 hearing was sufficient new and material evidence to reopen his claim. However, the Board notes that this testimony recounting the events of the hatch falling on him were similar to those statements made during the Veteran’s March 2004 Board hearing. Accordingly, the Board finds that this testimony is not new and material evidence. Accordingly, the Board finds that reopening of the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury is not warranted. Acquired Psychiatric Disorder The Veteran contends that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder has been submitted. The Board notes that this disability, claimed as psychosis, was originally denied in a March 1992 rating decision, as there was no finding of psychosis, and the Veteran was diagnosed with a personality disorder, which is not a disability for which service connection can be granted. In February 2006, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as there was no nexus between the Veteran’s then-diagnosed psychiatric disorders and service. The Veteran was last denied entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder in a November 2009 rating decision, as there was no new and material evidence submitted since the previous last denial of record. As the November 2009 rating decision was not challenged, it has become final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. The Veteran filed a new claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder in January 2015, which was denied in the March 2015 rating decision currently on appeal, as there was no new and material evidence since the last prior denial of record. The Board finds that no new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the Veteran’s claim was submitted since the last prior final denial of record. The Veteran’s representative claimed that the Veteran’s testimony during the February 2018 hearing was new and material, and she also indicated that the VA examiner in 1991 did not have access to the Veteran’s service records, which the Board is interpreting as an argument that the Veteran’s claim should be reconsidered de novo under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). Although it appears that the examiner who conducted the initial March 1991 psychiatric examination did not have the Veteran’s service records, the records were associated with the claims file, and reviewed, by subsequent examiners, such as the most recent April 2006 VA examiner. Accordingly, the Board finds that reconsideration under section 3.156(c) is not warranted, as these records were associated with the claims file at the time of the last denial of record. Regarding the Veteran’s testimony during the February 2018 Board hearing, the Board finds that this testimony regarding in-service stressors was redundant of his previous statements of record, specifically during the March 2004 Board hearing. In both hearings, the Veteran reported instances of hazing, of being hit with a hatch, of being the victim of a robbery, and of the suicide of a fellow serviceman. Further the statements the Veteran and his mother made during the hearing regarding the Veteran being impacted by the death of his father in service were also of record during the prior final denial. Specifically, during an April 2005 VA psychiatric examination, the Veteran reported the stress that was caused by his father’s death early in his military career. Thus, since the statements made during the February 2018 Board hearing were redundant of statements previously made by the Veteran, and since the Veteran has not submitted any further new and material evidence, the Board finds that reopening of the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not warranted. Lung Disability The Veteran contends that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for a breathing disorder has been submitted. The Board notes that this disability, claimed as a lung condition to include shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, bronchitis, and/or pneumonia as a result of asbestos exposure, was first denied in a December 2002 rating decision, as there was no evidence of a then-current disability, and because exposure to asbestos during service had not been established. The Veteran was last denied entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder in a November 2009 rating decision. As the November 2009 rating decision was not challenged, it has become final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. The Veteran filed a claim to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for a lung condition in September 2014, which was denied in the March 2015 rating decision on appeal, as there was no new and material evidence. Evidence associated with the claims file since the last prior denial includes the Veteran’s VA treatment records. Medical notations from September 2014 indicate that nodules were found on the Veteran’s lungs; thus, indicating the possibility of a current lung disability. This evidence is material because it relates to unestablished facts necessary to establish the Veteran’s claim, specifically a possible current lung disability. Additionally, the evidence is neither cumulative nor redundant, as this evidence was not of record at the time of the prior denial. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Accordingly, for all the above reasons, the Veteran’s claim for a lung disability is reopened. Service Connection Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In general, service connection requires the following: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Where a Veteran served for at least 90 days during a period of war or after December 31, 1964, and manifests certain chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system and arthritis, to a degree of 10 percent within one year, respectively, from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In an October 4, 1995, opinion, VA’s Under Secretary for Health determined that it was appropriate to consider high frequency sensorineural hearing loss an organic disease of the nervous system, and therefore a presumptive disability. The Board notes that in Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determined that tinnitus is an “organic disease of the nervous system” subject to presumptive service connection where there is evidence of acoustic trauma and nerve damage. Alternatively, when a disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) is not shown to be chronic during service or the one-year presumptive period, service connection may also be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). However, the use of continuity of symptomology to establish service connection is limited only to those diseases listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) and does not apply to other disabilities which might be considered chronic from a medical standpoint. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Thoracic and Lumbar Spine Disabilities The Veteran maintains that he is entitled to service connected for thoracic and lumbar spine disabilities. The medical evidence of record establishes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of strains and degenerative disc disease in the thoracic and lumbar spine; therefore, a current disability for both claims has been established. During his February 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran maintained that he injured his thoracolumbar spine during service when he was hit in the head with a hatch. Although there is an indication in his service treatment records that the Veteran was hit in the head with a hatch in May 1980, there is no indication that this incident caused any injury to the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine. Specifically, the service treatment records indicate that the Veteran was hit in the nose, which caused a two-centimeter laceration on the bridge of the nose. In a June 1982 report of medical history, the Veteran did not report any back injuries. Additionally, a May 1984 re-enlistment examination and December 1984 report of medical history noted the latch injury, but neither report noted any spine injuries. Similarly, March 1988 re-enlistment examination did not note any spine injuries. Finally, the Board notes that there was a report in April 1990 of lower back pain, but the Veteran’s June 1990 discharge examination noted a normal spine. Further, the Veteran himself denied any back issues in his June 1990 report of medical history. The Board notes that on VA examination in March 1992, the Veteran’s thoracic and lumbar spine were noted to be normal. Further, the Veteran denied any problems in the past or present in these areas. More recently, the Veteran was provided a VA examination for his thoracolumbar spine in August 2011. He was found to have thoracic and lumbar spine strains with degenerative changes. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s spine disabilities were not at least as likely as not related to service. He reasoned that although there was an indication in the Veteran’s service treatment records of lower back pain, there was no indication of any back pain upon separation. Also of record are private treatment records, and medical records provided by the Social Security Administration. On numerous occasions, the Veteran reported that he injured his lower back, either in 1995 or 1999, while moving a freight while working at a warehouse after separation from service. The Veteran did not report that he injured his thoracolumbar spine in service and did not report that the hatch incident caused any pain or other disabilities in his thoracolumbar spine. Regarding the Veteran’s lay assertions that his current thoracolumbar spine disabilities were caused by his in-service injury, the Board notes that a Veteran is generally competent to describe his symptomology. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, when assessing the credibility of lay statements, VA may consider interest, bias, inconsistent statements, bad character, internal inconsistency, facial plausibility, self-interest, consistency with other evidence of record, malingering, desire for monetary gain, and the demeaner of the witness. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995). Due to the Veteran’s inconsistent statements regarding his lower back pain and his latch injury, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claim that his thoracolumbar spine disabilities were caused by his in-service head injury lack credibility and are afforded little probative weight. Further, the Veteran’s statements are outweighed by the medical evidence of record. Thus, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence of record does not support that the Veteran’s current thoracolumbar spine disabilities are related to service. Further, the most probative evidence of record does not reflect that the Veteran was diagnosed with a chronic disability within the presumptive time period after separation from service, or had a continuity of symptomology from a chronic disability since service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). Accordingly, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a thoracic and lumbar spine disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Bilateral Hearing Loss and Tinnitus The Veteran claims that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus because these disabilities were caused by noise exposure in service. He testified during the February 2018 Board hearing that he experienced ringing in his ears since service. A review of the Veteran’s medical records reveals that he has bilateral hearing loss of VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Further, the Veteran reported recurrent tinnitus. Thus, a current disability for these claims has been established. The Veteran was provided a VA audiological examination in March 2015, where he was provided a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The Veteran reported significant noise exposure in the military from heavy equipment, weapons fire, and explosions, without hearing protection. The VA audiologist opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) caused by, or a result of an event in service. The audiologist reasoned that the Veteran’s entrance examination showed hearing that was within normal limits in both ears. Further, his separation examination reflected hearing within normal to near normal limits in both ears with no significant changes. Regarding tinnitus, the VA audiologist opined that this disability was less likely than not (less than a 50 percent probability) caused by or a result of military noise exposure. The audiologist opined that, upon review of the Veteran claims file, there was insufficient evidence of acoustic trauma that would provide a nexus for tinnitus symptoms. Further, there are a few instances of the Veteran reporting a sore throat, stuffy nose, and plugged-up ears in service, but the numerous service examinations of record do not note any significant hearing loss or reports of tinnitus. The Board notes that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty was security guard, and that there are no reported instances of any excessive noise exposure or of any acoustic trauma in his service records. Also of record are VA and private treatment records. There was no indication of any reports of, or treatment for, hearing loss or tinnitus prior to the March 2015 VA examination. Further, the Veteran reported in October 2001 that he did not experience any ringing in his ears. Based on the totality of the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is not warranted. Additionally, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not support that there was evidence continuity of symptomology. Although the Veteran reported during his February 2018 Board hearing that he experienced ringing in his ears since service, this is contradicted by his reports to his physician in October 2001 that he did not experience any ringing in his ears. Thus, his reports of continuous symptoms lack credibility and afforded little probative weight. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran claimed in February 2018 testimony that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were related to in-service noise exposure. The Veteran is competent to describe his symptomology, but the determination of the etiology of auditory disabilities is complex and requires medical training or knowledge. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2007). His statements and contentions regarding the etiology of his claimed disabilities are outweighed by the other evidence of record, including the March 2015 VA audiology examination, and the Veteran’s own previous statements. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims on appeal, and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Hemorrhagic Cystitis and Prostatitis The Veteran claims that he is entitled to service connection for hemorrhagic cystitis and prostatitis. The Board notes that the Veteran’s service treatment records reflect that he was treated for hemorrhagic cystitis and prostatitis in service; thus, an in-service disease or injury for these claims has been established. However, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claim must fail, as the preponderance of the evidence of record does not reflect that the Veteran has current diagnoses for the disabilities he is claiming—the threshold inquiry for entitlement to service connection. The Veteran was provided a VA examination in March 2015. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had hemorrhagic cystitis and prostatitis in service, but these diagnoses were not currently present and had resolved. Further, the Board notes that the Veteran’s VA treatment records do not reflect a current diagnosis of, or treatment for, either disease. Accordingly, since there is no evidence that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hemorrhagic cystitis or prostatitis, entitlement to service connection for these disabilities is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). REASONS FOR REMAND Finally, the Veteran maintains that he is entitled to service connection for a lung disability, claimed as due to in-service asbestos exposure. As discussed above, the Veteran’s claim was previously denied, inter alia, because the Veteran did not have a current lung disability. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been provided a VA respiratory examination. The Board notes that the VA medical treatment records reflect that in September 2014, nodules were found on the Veteran’s lungs; thus, indicating the possibility of a current respiratory disability. During the February 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran maintained that his lung disability was caused by in-service asbestos exposure. As the Veteran has not been provided a VA examination regarding the existence, nature, or etiology of any respiratory disability, the Board finds that a VA examination is warranted. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Develop the Veteran’s assertion that he was exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Navy from June 1978 to August 1990. 3. Thereafter, forward the Veteran’s electronic claims file to an appropriate examiner for an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any currently diagnosed respiratory diagnosis. It is left to the examiner’s discretion whether to examine the Veteran. Following the review of the claims file, the examiner should identity any currently diagnosed respiratory disorder, to include a discussion of the lung nodules found on imaging studies in September 2014, and provide an opinion on the following: If the Veteran is found to have a respiratory disability, whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that said disability was caused by, or otherwise related to, the Veteran’s reported asbestos exposure during service. A complete rationale for all opinions should be provided. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. DeChiara, Associate Counsel