Citation Nr: 18151052 Decision Date: 11/16/18 Archive Date: 11/16/18 DOCKET NO. 16-47 804 DATE: November 16, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral 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. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2018). 2. The criteria for service connection for bilateral tinnitus have been meet. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from June 1973 to October 1973. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Service Connection The Veteran has asserted that he has bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus as a result of acoustic trauma sustained in active service. Specifically, the Veteran has claimed hazardous noise exposure in the form of launching grenades and firing weapons without proper ear protection during active service. A review of the Veteran’s service records shows that his military occupational specialty (MOS) during active duty was a trainee. The Board finds that the Veteran’s reported noise exposure is consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. Therefore, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes or tinnitus while the Veteran was in active service. However, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus while in active service and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced symptoms of hearing loss disability and tinnitus and that his 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. In March 2016, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiology evaluation. At that time, the Veteran reported the in-service noise exposure described above. Audiogram results at that time showed the Veteran to have bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2018). The VA examiner diagnosed bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes and bilateral tinnitus. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability and bilateral tinnitus was not caused by or the result of active service. In this regard, the examiner noted that Veteran had normal hearing at his entrance and separation examinations, with no significant permanent shift in hearing during active service. Moreover, the examiner noted that there was no evidence of chronicity or continuity of care regarding bilateral hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus since service separation. The examiner conceded excessive noise exposure. However, the examiner stated auditory damage and tinnitus was not conceded from hazardous noise. The Board finds the March 2016 VA audiology opinion to be inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiner did not give appropriate consideration to the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinions are not adequate, they cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. 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). Here, as noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus, and his statements have been found credible. The Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma in active service. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus in service and since. The Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes and bilateral tinnitus. There is no competent VA medical opinion of record against the claims. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claims is at least in equipoise. Therefore, 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 Mariah N. Sim, Associate Counsel