Citation Nr: 18160276 Decision Date: 12/27/18 Archive Date: 12/26/18 DOCKET NO. 15-23 753 DATE: December 27, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is due to his noise exposure during active service. 2. The Veteran has tinnitus, which is secondary to his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the Navy from August 1955 to March 1975 and is a veteran of the Vietnam Era. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) through an appeal of the July 2013 rating decision. A hearing was held in September 2018 at which the Veteran, his wife, and his daughter were present. A transcript of this hearing is included in the record. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is a result of working as an aircraft electrician while in service. Specifically, he contends that he would work on jet aircraft engines and in areas with a high volume of noise while wearing earmuffs that were not sufficient protection. See Hearing Transcript dated September 2018; VA Examination dated June 2013. A veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from a personal injury suffered or diseased contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service” – the so-called “nexus” requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The record reflects a current diagnosis for bilateral hearing loss as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. See VA Examination dated June 2013. As to in-service incurrence and a nexus, the Board finds that the Veteran’s noise exposure during service constitutes an in-service event or injury for the purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The Board finds that the Veteran’s discharge paperwork indicates that the Veteran’s MOS was motorized vehicle mechanic which is probative because it supports the Veteran’s assertion that he was exposed to hazardous noise from the jet engines and aviation equipment. See DD-214. The Board also considered the Veteran’s lay statements that he was exposed to hazardous noise without proper hearing protection while he was in service. See Hearing Transcript dated September 2018. The Board finds that the Veteran’s statements have probative value because they support the Veteran’s assertions that his hearing loss is due to noise exposure while in service and the statements are consistent with his MOS. The Veteran’s wife and daughter also testified to the Veteran’s hearing loss. See Hearing Transcript dated September 2018. The wife and daughter both testified that they recall the Veteran being hard of hearing while he was in service. His daughter testified that she would sit at the airports a lot and on the tarmac while her father was working on jet engines. His wife also testified that the Veteran failed a hearing examination for a civilian job, days after being discharged from service. See Hearing Transcript dated September 2018. The Board finds that the wife and daughter’s lay statements hold significant probative value because they are consistent with the evidence of record. The Board acknowledges the June 2013 VA examination which shows that while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is less likely than not due to noise exposure during military service. The rationale was that the separation examination showed the Veteran’s hearing to be within normal limits. The examiner noted that the Veteran contended that he was near loud jet engines and loud equipment and that served as an electrician and flight crew in the Navy. See VA Examination dated June 2013. The Board finds that this examination has less probative value because while the examiner noted the Veteran’s lay statements within the examination, his given rationale appears to only be based on the service treatment records. In addition, the record contains a July 2015 private medical opinion by Dr. J.D. in which Dr. J.D. opines that the Veteran working on aircraft engines and on aircraft carriers significantly affected and contributed to his bilateral hearing loss. See Letter from Dr. J.D. dated July 2015. The Board affords this medical opinion at least as much probative value as the VA examination, because while Dr. J.D. contends that the Veteran is a patient of his, he does not provide specific information regarding his familiarity with the Veteran’s hearing loss or whether he reviewed the Veteran’s claims folder. The Veteran’s MOS, his lay statements, and the testimony obtained at the hearing indicate that the Veteran was likely to have been exposed to high levels of noise while he served. Therefore, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that he has tinnitus due to his in-service noise exposure. The Veteran reported having a ringing in his ears from being on aircraft and flying a lot in extreme weather. See Hearing Transcript dated September 2018. Secondary service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or the result of, a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Secondary service connection is also possible for the increase in severity of a nonservice connected disability that is caused (aggravated) by a service connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (b). The Veteran is service connected for his bilateral hearing loss. The record reflects that he has a current diagnosis for tinnitus as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. See VA Examination dated June 2013. The examiner for the June 2013 VA examination opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus was at least as likely as not a symptom of the Veteran’s hearing loss. See VA Examination dated June 2013. The Board finds that the VA examination has probative value because it is consistent with other evidence in the record. While the Veteran’s service treatment records are silent as to the Veteran having tinnitus, the Board finds that secondary service connection is warranted because tinnitus is a symptom of the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss. Accordingly, the Board concludes that service connection for tinnitus secondary to service-connected bilateral hearing loss is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Bognar, Associate Counsel