Citation Nr: 18148865 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 641A DATE: November 9, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus are etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bilateral hearing loss disability was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2018). 2. Tinnitus was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service in the United States Marine Corps from June 1980 to June 1984. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 rating decision issued by the VA Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. Service Connection The Veteran has contended that his bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus are related to his in-service noise exposure. Specifically, the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was as a field artillery battery man. He asserted that he was exposed to artillery noise during service and did not have any exposure to post-service recreational or occupational noise. The Board finds that the Veteran’s report of hazardous noise exposure is consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. As such, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. Service treatment records are silent for complaints of, or treatment for decreased hearing acuity or tinnitus while the Veteran was in active service. The Veteran’s audiometric test results were normal during service. However, at the time of his May 1984 separation examination, an audiogram revealed that the Veteran’s right ear had an auditory threshold of 30 decibels at 6000 Hz. Nonetheless, the results of audiometric testing did not demonstrate a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Regardless, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced symptoms associated with hearing loss and tinnitus while he was in active service and that those 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 in that respect. A review of post-service medical records revealed that the Veteran underwent private audiological testing in July 2008. The Veteran complained of right, greater than left, hearing loss and tinnitus. The audiologist determined that the Veteran’s hearing was normal in his left ear and normal at 250 to 2000 Hz with moderate sensorineural hearing loss at 3000 to 8000 Hz in his right ear. Additionally, the audiologist stated that the Veteran had excellent word recognition ability at conversational levels bilaterally. In January 2013, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological evaluation. The examiner diagnosed tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. However, the examiner was unable to provide an etiological opinion without resort to mere speculation. As such, an addendum VA medical opinion was obtained in January 2013. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus were less likely than not caused by or the result of noise exposure in active service. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s hearing sensitivity was essentially stable during service and was within normal limits at separation, there was no scientific support for delayed onset noise-induced hearing loss, the Veteran had symmetrical hearing at separation and significant asymmetrical hearing loss in 2008, and the Veteran’s hearing sensitivity had decreased between his 2008 and 2013 audiologic assessments, many years following service. The Board finds that the January 2013 VA medical opinion is inadequate for adjudication purposes. Specifically, the examiner did not consider the Veteran’s MOS and his competent and credible statements regarding his exposure to loud artillery noise throughout his tour of active duty. In addition, the examiner did not address the Veteran’s lay assertion that he was not exposed to post-service noise. Moreover, there is no evidence that Maryland CNC testing was conducted at the July 2008 private audiological evaluation. As the opinion is inadequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. 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. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify reduced hearing acuity and tinnitus, and his statements have been found credible. In sum, the Board has conceded acoustic trauma during active service. The Veteran has competently reported that he first experienced hearing loss and tinnitus while in active service and that he has continued to experience hearing loss since that time, and those statements have been found credible by the Board. While there is a VA medical opinion of record indicating that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus are not related to his noise exposure in active service, that opinion is not adequate. Furthermore, the Veteran has current diagnoses of tinnitus and a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus is at least in equipoise. Accordingly, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Ware, Associate Counsel