Citation Nr: 18147758 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 15-46 686 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to acoustic trauma incurred during active duty service. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus is shown to be etiologically related to his military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1965 to June 1969. The Veteran appeals an July 20, 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston Texas. On August 8, 2018, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). Service Connection In general, the relevant law provides that a veteran be entitled to service connection for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection also is permissible for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Certain chronic diseases, including sensorineural hearing loss (as an organic disease of the nervous system), may be presumed to have been incurred in or aggravated by service if they become disabling to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). The determination of whether a veteran has a service-connectable hearing loss is governed by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, which states that hearing loss will be considered to be a “disability” when the threshold level in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or speech recognition scores are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2017). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran alleges that he has bilateral hearing loss as a result of his active military service. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran is diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. See July 2015 VA examination. A review of the Veteran’s DD Form 214 shows that his military occupational specialty (MOS) during active service was weapons mechanic. At the August 2018 hearing, the Veteran testified to working on the flight line loading weapons onto aircraft. Under these circumstances, the Board finds that the reported exposure to hazardous noise is consistent with the facts and circumstances of the Veteran’s active service. Accordingly, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. Service treatment records are silent for complaints of, or treatment for bilateral hearing loss disability while the Veteran was in active service. On VA examination in July 2015, he Veteran was shown to have bilateral sensorineural hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss was less likely than not related to noise exposure during service, as the Veteran’s STRs at enlistment and discharge showed normal hearing and he had no complaints of hearing loss in active service. However, the Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report hearing problems in the ears during service and since that time. Moreover, the Board finds that the Veteran’s reports of noise exposure during his period of service and hearing problems since service, are credible. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007). The Board finds that the balance of favorable and unfavorable evidence is in equipoise. As such, the Board resolves doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was caused by his in-service noise exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran is seeking entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. He attributes his tinnitus to loud military noise exposure in the Army. As discussed above, in-service loud noise exposure is conceded. A review of the service medical records is silent for treatment for or a diagnosis of tinnitus while the Veteran was in active service. However, the Veteran has reported that he has experienced bilateral recurrent tinnitus The Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced tinnitus and that the symptoms have continued since service. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible. The Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. While the Board acknowledges the negative nexus opinion given by the July 2015 VA examiner, the Board finds the Veteran credible in his reports that tinnitus began in service and has continued ever since. The Veteran’s statements regarding onset are consistent with the circumstances of his service and with the record. Therefore, the Board finds him credible in this regard. In sum, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus, and the Board concedes that he sustained acoustic trauma during military service. Lastly, the Veteran has competently and credibly reported that he first noticed tinnitus during active service and that his symptoms have continued since service. Accordingly, the medical and lay evidence weighs in favor of finding that the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his military service and that service connection is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). JOHN J CROWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD V. Woehlke, Associate Counsel