Citation Nr: 18148799 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 15-45 112 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1966 to April 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2012 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in December 2016. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The competent and credible evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus began during service and have been recurrent since that time. The Veteran competently and credibly testified that he first noticed tinnitus during service and that it has continued over the years. See December 2016 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his tinnitus symptoms and the Board finds his testimony credible. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board notes that the November 2011 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s current tinnitus was not related to service; however, because the evidence shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus had their onset in service, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994). REMANDED ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. In November 2011, the Veteran provided a VA examination. The Veteran was diagnosed with hearing loss; however, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’ hearing loss is less likely than not caused by or a result of excessive noise in service. The examiner noted the Veteran’s MOS was light weapons infantryman and therefore, conceded excessive noise exposure. However, the examiner rationalized that the Veteran’s VAMC chart notes reveals that in 2006 he reported that his work experience included construction with power tool use for approximately 40 years and he started wearing ear muffs to protect his hearing about 15 years ago. At his December 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran refuted the VA examiner’s rationale. The Veteran explained that he told the examiner that he was in the landscape business for 40 years. He stated that he never said that he was around tractors and wore ear muffs or anything like that. He does not understand where this account came from. Instead, the Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss is likely related to acoustic trauma due to noise exposure in service. He further contends that he has had minimal post service noise exposure. Clarity is needed regarding this matter. Accordingly, a remand for another VA examination is required. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Notify the Veteran that he may submit lay statements from himself and from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge, and/or were contemporaneously informed of his in-service and post-service symptomatology regarding his claimed bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay evidence. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of his claimed bilateral hearing loss. The entire claims file must be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must conduct an audiological evaluation, including speech recognition testing, to determine whether the Veteran currently has a hearing loss disability. If hearing loss is identified, the examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any current hearing loss was incurred during the Veteran’s period of service, or are the result of exposure to loud noise during his periods of service. In offering this opinion, please discuss the impact of the Veteran’s in-service acoustic trauma on the hair cells in his cochlea, and state whether it is at least as likely as not that his hearing loss occurred sooner, or progressed to a greater degree of severity than it otherwise would have, as a result of his in-service acoustic trauma. The examiner should note that in-service noise exposure has been conceded. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jacquelynn M. Jordan, Associate Counsel