Citation Nr: 18157709 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 15-43 732 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER Service connection for recurrent tinnitus is granted. Service connection for skin condition, claimed as psoriasis is granted. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee condition is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in service. 2. The Veteran’s skin condition, diagnosed as psoriasis, had its onset during service or is otherwise related to service. 3. At the October 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran requested that his claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss be withdrawn from appellate review. 4. At the October 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran requested that his claim for entitlement to service connection for sinusitis be withdrawn from appellate review. 5. At the October 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran requested that his claim for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee condition be withdrawn from appellate review. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for a skin disorder, diagnosed as psoriasis, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1154(a), 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017). 4. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for sinusitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017). 5. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1966 to June 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in October 2018. Withdrawn Claims An appeal may be withdrawn by an appellant or his or her authorized representative as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. At the October 2018 hearing before the Board, the Veteran withdrew his appeal in connection with claims of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, sinusitis and a bilateral knee condition. See October 2018 Hearing Transcript. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these appellate claims, and they are dismissed. Service Connection Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an 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 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus All three elements of service connection are established by the competent and credible lay and medical evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Tinnitus is a disorder that is readily observable by laypersons and does not require medical expertise to establish its existence. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The Board finds that the Veteran has a diagnosis of tinnitus because the Veteran states that he has ringing of the ears that began shortly after service and has continued since that time and he is competent to make such a statement as this is within his lay observation. See June 2012 Notice of Disagreement; see June 2012 Buddy Statement from spouse; October 2018 Board Hearing Transcript. Thus, the first two criteria have been met. Further, the competent and credible evidence of record shows that his current tinnitus began shortly after service and have been recurrent since that time. The Veteran reported that he first noticed tinnitus shortly after service and that it has gotten worse over the years. See June 2012 Notice of Disagreement; June 2012 Buddy Statement; see also October 2018 Board Hearing Transcript. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his tinnitus symptoms and the Board finds his statements credible. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board notes that the August 2011 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus was not related to service; however, because the evidence shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in service, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994). 2. Entitlement to service connection for psoriasis The Veteran contends that he has a skin disorder, diagnosed as psoriasis, that is related to service. He specifically maintains that he developed a skin condition during service. The Veteran’s August 1966 pre-induction examination noted a diagnosis of neurodermatitis. The Board notes, the October 2015 VA examiner opined that he could not determine whether the Veteran’s LE retention hyperkeratosis was permanently aggravated by service without resorting to speculation. The examiner reasoned, that the Veteran’s STRs show an evaluation and treatment for LE skin rash. The examiner noted that both his entrance and separation examination noted normal skin, despite each containing a separate note about skin conditions and the latter noting mild psoriasis on his legs specifically. He further reasoned that this documentation supports either a normal skin examination, at entrance and/or at separation, with the examiner noting the skin diagnosis/ severity for historical purposes, or that the skin findings were so mild that the examiner felt they were not enough to mention but which of these is true, or if his LE skin findings had worsened or improved since entry, cannot be stated without resorting to mere speculation. At the October 2012 dermatology consult, the Veteran reported he has had skin problems for 50 years and his skin conditions have been the same since service. At various times, he has been diagnosed with neurodermatitis, psoriasis and seborrheic dermatitis. The examiner suspected severe seborrheic dermatitis on the Veteran’s face more likely than psoriasis. The examiner indicated that seborrheic and psoriasis overlap. The examiner also suspected retained hyperkeratosis. The Board notes, the Veteran’s service treatment records show treatment for a skin condition in service. See May 1967 Service Treatment Records. The Board finds that the Veteran’s reports as to skin problems during service and since service are credible. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007) (holding that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when a lay person is competent to identify the medical condition, or reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or the lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional). The Veteran is currently diagnosed with psoriasis. The Veteran competently and credibly testified at the Board hearing that his condition began in service and his symptoms have been ongoing since service. See October 2018 Hearing Transcript. As he testified, the STRs show treatment for skin problems in May 1967. His current medical records show diagnoses for psoriasis, seborrheic dermatitis and neurodermatitis.   Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for a skin disorder, diagnosed as psoriasis is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jacquelynn M. Jordan, Associate Counsel