Citation Nr: 18160330
Decision Date: 12/27/18	Archive Date: 12/26/18

DOCKET NO. 16-53 564A
DATE:	December 27, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.
Service connection for tinnitus is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.  Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to service.  
2.  Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to service.  
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.  The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).
2.  The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Veteran served on active duty from September 1972 to September 1974.

Service Connection
1.  Service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.  
The Veteran contends, including in his June 2012 claim application, that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus developed due to in-service noise exposure, including from his training as a combat engineer demolitionist, which included an unplanned detonation of explosives.  He has also provided credible lay statements as to chronic bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus since that incident.
The Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and that they are related to in-service noise exposure.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).
A July 2012 VA examiner found that tinnitus was associated with hearing loss.  The examiner also found that hearing loss was not due to service, as his separation examination did not document hearing loss.  The examiner further indicated that hearing loss had been seen at 6000 Hz bilaterally in August 1972, but that level of hearing had not been tested at separation.
An April 2016 VHA clarification found no evidence in the record that the Veteran sustained noise injuries based on audiograms, and thus, his hearing loss was not due to service.  The clarification further indicated that because there was no evidence that hearing loss or significant threshold changes occurred during military service, there is no basis on which to conclude that claimed tinnitus was caused by noise exposure.
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, however, has found that VA regulations do not preclude service connection for a hearing loss which first met VA’s definition of disability after service.  Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993).  As such, the Board finds that the VA medical opinions of record are inadequate, as they relied solely on the fact that hearing loss was not evident during the Veteran’s military separation examination as the reason for concluding his hearing loss (and subsequently tinnitus) was unrelated to his service. 
Given the Veteran’s credible reports of in-service noise exposure and his limited post-service noise exposure, in conjunction with credible reports of chronicity, and giving the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is warranted.  

 
 H.M. WALKER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Lindio