Citation Nr: 18155157 Decision Date: 12/03/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 16-00 979 DATE: December 3, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The record reflects evidence of a nexus between the current diagnosis of tinnitus and conceded in-service noise trauma. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Air Force from April 1951 to April 1955. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing in a May 2018 written statement. See 38 C.F.R. 20.704(e). Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that he currently has tinnitus that is related to in-service exposure to noise as a turret systems mechanic and gunner. Specifically, he states that he spent over 700 hours on B36 bomber planes as a gunner. Generally, establishing service connection requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Alternatively, for chronic diseases, as defined by regulation, shown in service, the second and third elements of service connection may be established through demonstrating chronicity or continuity of symptomatology in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) only applies to the listed chronic disabilities in 38 U.S.C. § 1101(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)). Tinnitus is a chronic disease. See Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 271 (2015) (holding section 3.309(a) “includes tinnitus, at a minimum where there is evidence of acoustic trauma, as an ‘organic disease[ ] of the nervous system’”). Tinnitus is a condition capable of lay observation. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (stating that “ringing in the ears is capable of lay observation” and, as such, a veteran is competent to testify as to that symptom). Therefore, the Veteran is competent to describe his tinnitus symptomatology after service. At an April 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he first remembered hearing the ringing in his ears a couple of years after his active duty service. In a March 2015 written statement, the Veteran reported that the ringing in his ears began a short period after service. The Board notes that the Veteran’s service treatment records are not in the claims file and that it appears VA was unable to locate these records. In cases where service records are unavailable, VA has a heightened duty to explain its findings and conclusions and to consider carefully the benefit of the doubt rule. Pruitt v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 83, 85 (1992); O’Hare v. Derwinsksi, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The Board’s analysis of the Veteran’s claim is undertaken with this duty in mind. However, “[t]he caselaw does not lower the legal standard for proving a claim for service connection but rather increases the Board’s obligation to evaluate and discuss in its decision all the evidence that may be favorable to the appellant.” Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996). Regardless of the presence of service treatment records, VA concedes noise exposure in service, based on the Veteran’s military occupational specialty as a gunner and turret systems mechanic aboard a B36 bomber airplane. The April 2014 examiner did not offer an opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to service, indicating that it would be speculation to state as much since the service treatment records were unavailable. The Board obtained another medical opinion in November 2018. A clinical audiologist reviewed the Veteran’s records and opined that it is at least as likely as not that the current tinnitus is caused by acoustic trauma during military service. The examiner noted the evidence was at least in equipoise regarding whether the tinnitus was caused by in-service noise exposure.   As there is evidence of current tinnitus, in-service acoustic trauma, and a nexus between the two, service connection for tinnitus is granted. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Josey, Associate Counsel