Citation Nr: 18158161 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 18-31 339 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence establishes a causal link between the appellant’s bilateral hearing loss and noise exposure during his active service. 2. The evidence establishes a causal link between the appellant’s tinnitus and noise exposure during his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1959 to February 1961. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The appellant appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge for a December 2018 videoconference hearing. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. The appellant contends that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are causally related to noise exposure during his active service. After a review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the appellant’s current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his in-service noise exposure. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The appellant asserts that his current hearing loss and tinnitus were caused by his exposure to gunfire, grenades, and special weapons testing as a light infantryman. Having had the opportunity to observe his demeanor at a hearing, the Board finds the appellant’s lay statements about an in-service exposure to significant military noise credible. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that such noise exposure is consistent with the appellant’s Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of light infantryman. Given these factors, the Board finds that an in-service injury, acoustic trauma, has been established. The appellant’s post-service VA treatment records reveal that he has severe bilateral hearing loss in the right ear, and sloping mild to severe hearing loss in the left ear, beginning at 500 Hz. He also uses hearing aids. He is noted to have word recognition scores of 40 percent on the right and 84 percent on the left. Based on this, the Board finds the appellant has a current hearing loss disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In addition, these record document a diagnosis of tinnitus. The Board notes that the appellant was not afforded a VA examination and that his file was viewed only under the Acceptable Clinical Evidence (ACE) process in December 2016. This medical opinion found there to be no causal link between the appellant’s active service and his current hearing loss disability and tinnitus because the appellant did not have significant hearing threshold shifts in service and his hearing was within normal limits at entrance and separation. The Board finds this opinion inadequate as it relies on inaccurate factual data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). A review of the appellant’s service treatment records indicates that he was only provided a whisper test, which is not a valid measure of hearing acuity, around the time of his induction. Further, the Board notes that merely an absence of hearing loss at the time of separation is insufficient to support an adequate rationale, as it does not address whether the appellant’s hearing loss, even though not noted at separation, was causally related to active service. As such, the Board affords this opinion little probative weight. At the appellant’s videoconference hearing, he indicated that he was a medical health professional, a chiropractor, and that in his opinion, informed by his research of scholarly work on the topic, he believed that his bilateral hearing loss was causally related to his active duty noise exposure. In addition to his research, he explained that his rationale relied on the fact that he had significant in-service noise exposure and that he has no other significant noise exposure in his history which might have caused his current bilateral hearing loss. He explained that immediately after his discharge, he began working as a chiropractor in an office setting with little or no noise exposure. Finally, the appellant testified that he first noticed decreased hearing acuity and roaring in his ears in service following acoustic trauma and that these symptoms have continued since that time, worsening in severity. As the record indicates the appellant is a medical health professional, the Board finds him competent to offer an opinion on the etiology of his disability. Further, the Board finds this opinion to probative, as the appellant offered a rationale for his conclusion, to include research on the topic. Considering this, the Board finds that the record is sufficient to support a causal link between the appellant’s active service and his current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities. As such, the Board concludes that service connection is warranted for these disabilities. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Kleponis, Associate Counsel