Citation Nr: 18157449
Decision Date: 12/12/18	Archive Date: 12/12/18

DOCKET NO. 13-11 939
DATE:	December 12, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.  The Veteran’s DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Marksman (Rifle) badge during active service; thus, his in-service exposure to acoustic trauma is presumed.
2.  The Veteran’s available service treatment records show some degree of hearing impairment in the right ear on an audiogram completed in November 1982.
3. The Veteran has contended that he incurred tinnitus during active service and experienced continuous disability due to tinnitus since his service separation.
4.  Resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his current tinnitus is related to active service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2017).  
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active service from June 1980 to June 1983.
A Decision Review Officer (DRO) hearing was held at the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) on the Veteran’s currently appealed claim in November 2013 and a copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the record.
The Board observes that it has remanded the currently appealed claim to the AOJ for additional development on multiple occasions, most recently in May 2017.
1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus
The Board finds that the evidence supports granting the Veteran’s claim of service connection for tinnitus.  The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred tinnitus as a result of in-service exposure to acoustic trauma (which he described variously as unspecified loud noises and as tank and rifle fire) and experienced continuous disability due to tinnitus since his service separation.  As noted above, the Veteran’s DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Marksman (Rifle) badge during active service; thus, his in-service exposure to acoustic trauma is presumed.  The Veteran’s available service treatment records show some degree of hearing impairment in the right ear on an audiogram completed in November 1982.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2017).  The Veteran testified at his November 2013 DRO hearing that his tinnitus (which he described as ringing in his ears) began during active service and continued since his service separation.  As also noted above, the Board has remanded this appeal on multiple occasions and directed the AOJ to attempt to obtain an opinion concerning the contended etiological relationship between the Veteran’s tinnitus and active service.  Unfortunately, as noted in the Board’s prior remands, all of the medical opinions obtained to date are inadequate for VA adjudication purposes.  The most recent medical opinions obtained in September 2017 and in February 2018 similarly are inadequate for VA adjudication purposes; indeed, the Board notes that the February 2018 medical opinion discusses hearing loss and not tinnitus.  In other words, none of the medical opinions of record were relied upon in adjudicating the Veteran’s currently appealed claim.  What remains in this appeal is evidence of some degree of in-service hearing loss noted in November 1982, the Veteran’s lay statements and November 2013 DRO hearing testimony of in-service exposure to acoustic trauma, the presumption of such exposure, and medical records showing a continuity of symptomatology due to ongoing complaints of tinnitus since his service separation.  In summary, and after resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017).  
 
R. FEINBERG
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Michael T. Osborne, Counsel