Citation Nr: 19153298 Decision Date: 07/10/19 Archive Date: 07/10/19 DOCKET NO. 16-37 755 DATE: July 10, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has left ear hearing loss that is attributable to service. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus is attributable to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for left ear hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2018). 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1968 to February 1977. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection – Left Ear Hearing Loss Disability In the instant case, there is both positive and negative medical evidence regarding whether the Veteran currently has a left ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes. In this regard, the negative evidence consists of a December 2013 VA audiological examination report showing pure tone threshold levels of 25, 15, 25, 30 and 35 decibels at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, respectively, in the left ear. The speech discrimination score in the left ear was 96 percent. Although the examiner diagnosed the Veteran as having sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear, those findings do not meet the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 for VA-defined hearing impairment with respect to the left ear. The positive evidence consists of a January 2013 VA audiological consultation record showing pure tone threshold levels of 20, 10, 30, 35 and 30 decibels at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, respectively, in the left ear. The speech discrimination score in the left ear was 92 percent. Those findings do satisfy the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 for VA-defined hearing impairment in the left ear. In light of the above audiological findings, the Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise regarding whether the Veteran has hearing loss in the left ear as defined by VA under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Thus, by resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that he meets the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 for a hearing loss disability in the left ear. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Regarding in-service noise exposure, the RO conceded inservice noise exposure by noting that the Veteran was in receipt of the Navy Commendation Medal with Gold Star (Combat "V) and he was exposed to “combat noise”. See December 2013 rating decision. The Veteran has specifically asserted hazardous noise exposure from his aviation duties to include noise from flying planes, shipboard operations, and weapons. As far as nexus evidence, the December 2013 VA examiner linked the Veteran’s sensorineural hearing loss, bilaterally, to his noise exposure in service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim of entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss disability is at least in equipoise. Therefore, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Tinnitus The Veteran contends that he has tinnitus due to military noise exposure. As noted above, his military noise exposure has been conceded. Service treatment records do not show that the Veteran complained of ringing in his ears or that he was diagnosed as having tinnitus. In December 2013, he was afforded a VA examination and was diagnosed as having tinnitus. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported that the onset of tinnitus was four years earlier and he opined that this “was not a reasonable frame of time to suggest his military noise exposure was the cause for his tinnitus”. However, the Veteran subsequently explained in his August 2014 Notice of Disagreement that what he meant to say to the examiner is that his tinnitus went from being an annoyance to a real problem four years earlier. He went on to state that he has had tinnitus ever since service. He is competent to report when he first experienced symptoms of tinnitus and that those symptoms have continued since that time. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). The Board finds that he is credible with respect to his assertions. Accordingly, the Board finds that the October 2013 VA audiology examiner’s opinion negating a nexus between the Veteran’s tinnitus and service is of diminished probative value in light of the misunderstanding regarding the date of onset of tinnitus. 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 A. Shawkey, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.