Citation Nr: 18146915 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/01/18 DOCKET NO. 15-25 444 DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December April 1950 to November 1952. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2018 correspondence, the Veteran withdrew his Board hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in active service and for in-service aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. He reports tinnitus in his lay statements and to the May 2014/June 2015/August 2015 VA examiner. Most importantly, tinnitus is a disorder that is readily observable by laypersons and does not require medical expertise to establish its existence. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Thus, element one is met. Regarding elements two and three, in-service incurrence of a disease or injury and nexus, unfortunately, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) and a portion of his service personnel records are not available for review because they were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center. In such situations VA has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. See Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). Here, the Veteran has competently and credibly reported that he served in a tank division during service. In this regard, there are conflicting accounts regarding the onset of the Veteran’s tinnitus; however, the Board finds that the Veteran and his representative have provided sufficient clarification that he first experienced ringing in his ears after exposure to noise from tank fire during service, and the Board finds the Veteran credible in this regard. See November 2013 private treatment record, October 2014 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), June 2015 VA examination report, and February 2016 VA 646 Statement of Accredited Representative. Moreover, the Veteran is service-connected for bilateral hearing loss due to in-service acoustic trauma. Thus, resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, elements two and three of service connection are met. The Board recognizes that a VA audiologist, who examined the Veteran in May 2014, June 2015, and August 2015, ultimately rendered nexus opinions unfavorable to the Veteran’s tinnitus claim. However, the examiner did not adequately consider the Veteran’s statement that his tinnitus began in service. Additionally, in the June 2015 VA examination report, the examiner noted that since the Veteran’s STRs were fire-related significant weight is given to his description of the onset and progression of the tinnitus and that he “likely had tinnitus after tank firing in the service but his statements suggested the tinnitus was not permanent.” Thus, by the examiner’s own statement he found the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset during service. Moreover, his subsequent conclusions that the tinnitus was not permanent, that it started again many years after service, and that the Veteran did not adapt to it, do not negate the Veteran’s and his statements that tinnitus began in service. Lastly, he also relied on an inaccurate factual premise, indicating the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise post-service as a logger when he failed to take into account the Veteran’s and his representative’s statements that he worked in management at a logging company and would not have been exposed to the same level of noise exposure as a regular log crew member. See, e.g. July 2015 VA Form 9. Accordingly, the Board assigns these negative opinions no probative value. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Asante, Associate Counsel