Citation Nr: 18150509 Decision Date: 11/16/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-44 079 DATE: November 16, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Tinnitus as likely as not began during service and has continued since that time. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1112, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from May 1978 to May 1981, and from September 1981 to September 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the Veteran has filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) at the RO concerning entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction. These appeals are listed in the VACOLS appeals tracking system as an active appeal at the RO. While the Board is cognizant of the Court's decision in Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999), the Board notes that in this case, unlike in Manlincon, the RO has acknowledged the NODs and is currently in the process of adjudicating the appeal. Action by the Board at this time may actually delay the RO's adjudication of that appeal. As such, no action will be taken by the Board at this time, and the issue will be the subject of a later Board decision, if ultimately necessary. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). Moreover, where a veteran served continuously for 90 days or more and tinnitus becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, or treatment for, tinnitus during the Veteran’s active service. However, the Veteran’s DD Form 214 indicates that he earned the Expert Rifle Badge; and, as such, the Board concedes that he was exposed to acoustic trauma. In addition, the Veteran has reported that he first consistently noticed ringing in his ears during his period of service in Germany. He stated that he served with an Infantry Brigade, which often involved training foreign officers in weapons, resulting in significant exposure to rifle fire. At a visit at the VA Medical Center in April 2015, he relayed ringing in his ears which he stated began in the military, and had been getting worse since that time, consistent with his prior reported history. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report that he first experienced symptoms of tinnitus during active service and that the symptoms have continued since that time, as tinnitus is a condition that is subjective and capable of lay observation. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). In sum, the Board has conceded acoustic trauma during active service. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. The Veteran has competently reported that he first experienced tinnitus in service and that it has continued since that time, and those statements have been found credible by the Board. Accordingly, after resolving any doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability The Veteran contends that his bilateral knee disabilities are due to service, specifically due to years of running and jumping in boots, first in the Marines and then in the Army. VA treatment records indicate the Veteran has diagnoses of bilateral knee arthralgia, and findings of degenerative changes. The Board finds that an examination and opinion are warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his knee disabilities. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. After records development is completed, the Veteran should be afforded a VA knee examination to determine the nature of his bilateral knee complaints and to obtain an opinion as to whether such are possibly related to service. The claims file should be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All necessary tests should be conducted and the results reported. After review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: (a) Indicate whether the Veteran has a diagnosed disability in either knee or functional impairment of either knee. (b) Then, provide an opinion as to whether any current disability in the left and right knee at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) arose during service or is related to service, to include years of running and jumping in military boots. The examiner should explain why or why not, to include addressing the refence to left knee pain in the December 1995 VA examination. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Rachel Mamis