Citation Nr: 18160963 Decision Date: 12/28/18 Archive Date: 12/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16-53 323A DATE: December 28, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Tinnitus is etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active naval service from July 1977 to July 1981. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from May 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection – Tinnitus The Veteran asserts that his tinnitus is a result of acoustic trauma sustained in active service. He asserts that he was regularly exposed to hazardous noise during the course of his duties, specifically training for and working as a medical corpsman. In his appeal, the Veteran claims that he operated paint chippers, grinders, and engine boats in Marine waters in Scotland. He states that he also witnessed a compressed gas cylinder blow up, and attended a firearm and weapon training at Camp Lejeune. A review of the Veteran’s DD Form 214 of record shows that his military occupational specialty (MOS) during his active service was medical corpsman. The document also shows that the Veteran went through naval hospital corps school and field medical service technician training. As the Veteran’s reported hazardous noise exposure is consistent with his MOS while in active service, the Board concludes that he sustained acoustic trauma during active service. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, or a diagnosis of tinnitus while the Veteran was in active service. However, the Veteran made reports of ear pain and ear problems while he was in service. The Veteran’s first complaint occurred in December 1977, in which he stated that he felt as if his ears were plugged. In a December 1979 examination, the Veteran complained of an earache. In a January 1980 examination the Veteran complained of ear problems again, reporting that he had a feeling of fluid in his ears. Regardless, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced tinnitus while in active service and that the symptoms have continued since that time. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced symptoms of tinnitus and that they have continued since service. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. In May 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiology evaluation. At that time, the Veteran reported significant noise exposure during active service as a Navy corpsman and that the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset five or more years ago. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus was less likely as not related to his service. In this regard, the examiner noted that the Veteran had no significant shift in hearing between enlistment and separation physicals and that there was no evidence of in-service auditory system damage. In February 2017, an addendum VA medical opinion was obtained. At that time, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus was less likely as not related to his active service. In that regard, the examiner noted that, despite reports of noise exposure, there was no evidence of acoustic trauma during service. The Board finds that the May 2015 and February 2017 medical opinions are not adequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinions are not adequate, they cannot be used to support a denial of entitlement to service connection. The Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F .3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify symptoms of tinnitus and to report that they started during service and had continued since that time. In sum, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during service. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported that he first experienced symptoms of tinnitus while in active service and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus, and the VA medical opinions of record are not probative evidence against the claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is at least in equipoise. Therefore, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Devyn Whitlock, Law Clerk