Citation Nr: 18150848 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 15-40 646 DATE: November 15, 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 competent, credible, and probative lay and medical evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset during active service or within one year of separation from service. 2. The competent, credible, and probative lay and medical evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset during active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bilateral hearing loss was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 2. Tinnitus was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from April 1986 to April 1989. He testified during a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned in November 2018. This decision is rendered under the “one-touch” program, and prior to production of a hearing transcript; given the favorable outcome, the Veteran is not prejudiced by this action. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a November 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi. Service Connection Bilateral Hearing Loss Tinnitus The Veteran alleges that bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were incurred during his active service. To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran 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 or aggravated during service—the so-called “nexus” requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b). Some chronic diseases, including sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus, may be presumed to have been incurred in service, if they become manifest to a degree of ten percent or more within the applicable presumptive period. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101(3), 1112(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(a). For those listed chronic conditions, a showing of continuity of symptoms affords an alternative route to service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Competent medical evidence is evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may also include statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. It also includes statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competent lay evidence is any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). This may include some medical matters, such as describing symptoms or relating a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). A layperson is generally not capable of opining on matters requiring medical knowledge. Routen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 183, 186 (1997). See also Bostain v. West, 11 Vet. App. 124, 127 (1998). Hearing loss for the purposes of VA disability compensation is considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when the speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Current VA testing, dated in April 2014, establishes a hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as well as the presence of tinnitus. The Veteran alleges that both are due to noise exposure in service; he specifically references an incident in which a 105mm tank cannon fired when he was unprepared. Although routinely exposed to noise in his armored crewman duties, this occasion stood out. Service treatment records show a notched hearing loss at separation at 1000 Hertz; a VA examiner states that this is not consistent with noise exposure, but he does not address the allegation of a single acoustic trauma. This notch was not present at entrance, and the Veteran has competently and credibly testified that since service, and since this incident in particular, he has had difficulty with tinnitus and loss of hearing acuity. The Board finds that the evidence of record relates currently diagnosed hearing loss and tinnitus to service. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. J. Komins, Associate Counsel