Citation Nr: 18155067 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 16-37 999 DATE: December 4, 2018 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Currently diagnosed tinnitus was first manifested on active duty service. 2. Currently diagnosed PTSD is shown to be related to military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection of tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). 2. The criteria for service connection of PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1968 to October 1969. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from February 2014 and July 2015 rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Service connection will be granted if it is shown that the veteran suffers from a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, during active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Disorders diagnosed after discharge will still be service connected if all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); see also Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To establish service connection on a direct basis, the record must contain competent evidence of: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Some chronic diseases 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). Tinnitus, as an organic disease of the nervous system, is listed; the presumptive period is one year following separation from service. 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). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. 1. Tinnitus The Veteran competently and credibly reports he experiences tinnitus, or ringing in both ears. While no testing can verify this complaint, VA and private doctors have accepted the subjective reports and diagnosed the condition and a current disability is established. The Veteran has reported that his current disability began in service after exposure to loud noises. He served in the Unites States Navy as a combat engineer, or SeaBee, and was routinely exposed to construction noise. He was also in Vietnam, and experienced combat noise and explosions there. A March 2013 VA examiner declined to render a nexus opinion, stating that speculation would be required given the lack of documented treatment and complaints over the years. The only nexus evidence, then, is the competent and credible lay statements of the Veteran. Tinnitus can be experienced through the senses, and a lay person can observe and report it onset and recurrence. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). As it is a chronic disease, each recurrence is presumed related. Accordingly, the evidence of record shows onset of a chronic disease in service, with a current diagnosis. Service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 2. PTSD In addition to the above elements of service connection, service connection for PTSD requires a showing of a credible in-service stressor; the current disability and the nexus must also be established by medical evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Veteran contends that his PTSD is the result of his military service in Vietnam. A July 2015 VA examiner found that the Veteran’s detailed account of an ammunition depot explosion constituted a sufficient stressor to support a diagnosis of PTSD. She opined, however, that no such diagnosis was warranted based on the symptoms reported. Two private physicians then diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD in October 2016. Among the stressors reported by the Veteran was the same above explosion of an ammunitions depot. Personnel records note that the Veteran lost his uniform in a fire in April 1969, the same date as the explosion. Numerous buddy statements corroborate the Veteran’s account. The in-service stressor occurred. As the October 2016 examiner found that this stressor event supported the current diagnosis of PTSD, all the criteria for a grant of service connection are met. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. McDermott, Associate Counsel