Citation Nr: 18145930 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 15-16 775 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus was incurred in and due to his time in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the establishment of service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from May 1965 to April 1967. Generally, to prevail on a claim of service connection, there must be competent evidence of (1) 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 or other competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran contends his tinnitus was caused by his time in service when he was exposed to noise in various ways, including range gunfire and truck noise. The Veteran’s military occupational specialties (MOS) while in service included intelligence analyst, truck driver, and truck mechanic. The Veteran asserts the ringing in his ears began in service and has continued ever since. A May 2014 examiner stated an opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s tinnitus couldn’t be offered without resorting to mere speculation. The Court has found a lay person competent to identify tinnitus which is a disorder that can be identified based on lay observation alone. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The Veteran is competent and credible to report the circumstances of his service. The Board finds the evidence is in equipoise and therefore, the claim will be granted. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran contends he has bilateral hearing loss that was incurred in and due to his time in service. The Veteran’s separation examination audiogram shows the Veteran’s hearing to be normal, but the Veteran did indicate he suffered from ear problems while in service. The Veteran had an examination for his hearing in May 2014. However, the examiner was unable to test the Veteran’s puretone thresholds and his speech discrimination thresholds. However, the examiner opined the Veteran’s bilateral hearing was normal. The examiner opined the Veteran’s hearing loss was less likely than not caused by his time in service based on the Veteran’s service treatment records. The examiner noted the Veteran’s MOS was intelligence analyst and the Veteran had said he was a truck driver, exposed to noise from a rifle range. The Board finds the May 2014 examination to be inadequate because objective testing of the Veteran’s hearing loss was not performed. Additionally, the examiner did not appear to consider the Veteran’s statements that he was exposed to loud noise in service while working around gunfire and trucks. Therefore, a new examination is required. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain any of the Veteran’s outstanding VA and private medical records and associate them with the claims file. If possible, the Veteran himself should submit any pertinent new evidence regarding the condition at issue in order to expedite the claim. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination in order to determine the current severity of his hearing loss disability. The record, to include a copy of this Remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed, including the Maryland CNC test and a puretone audiometry test. The examiner should also discuss the effect of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss on his occupational functioning and daily activities. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. 3. After undertaking any other appropriate development deemed necessary, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the determinations remain adverse to the Veteran, he must be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time must then be allowed for a response before the record is returned to the Board for further review. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Snoparsky, Associate Counsel