Citation Nr: 18158392 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 15-46 586 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 Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2017). 2. 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). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1967 to March 1970, including combat service in the Republic of Vietnam and his decorations include the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Parachute Badge and the Air Medal. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in October 2018. Service Connection The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, which he contends began in service and has been recurrent since that time. Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. This means that the facts establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection on a direct basis requires evidence demonstrating: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the claimed in-service disease or injury. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). 1. Hearing Loss 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). The Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, reports ongoing hearing loss since he suffered acoustic trauma when he flew on helicopters with the doors open, and was exposed to gunfire, grenades, and clamor mines. See VA examination (September 2013). Thus, the first two criteria have been met. Further, the competent and credible evidence of record shows that his current bilateral hearing loss began during service and have been recurrent since that time. The Veteran reported that he first noticed hearing loss during service and that it has gotten worse over the years. See VA examination (September 2013); see also Statement in Support of Claim (December 2015). The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his hearing loss symptoms and the Board finds his testimony credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board acknowledges that the September 2013 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is not related to service, but affords no probative value to the opinion as it does not address the competent, lay evidence of hearing loss since service. Indeed, in offering a negative opinion, the examiner stated that he found it “highly unlikely” that the Veteran’s hearing improved as his service treatment records indicated, but then based his negative opinion on the existence of this evidence. As such, the Board concludes that the evidence of record sufficiently shows that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994). 2. 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 in service and has continued since that time and he is competent to make such a statement as this is within his lay observation. See VA examination (September 2013). Thus, the first two criteria have been met. Further, the competent and credible evidence of record shows that his current tinnitus began during service and have been recurrent since that time. The Veteran reported that he first noticed tinnitus during service, specifically after having been near and around loud explosions and firefights. He also stated that it has gotten worse over the years. See VA examination (September 2013); see also Statement in Support of Claim (December 2015). 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 September 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). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Anderson