Citation Nr: 19166331 Decision Date: 08/27/19 Archive Date: 08/27/19 DOCKET NO. 16-14 142 DATE: August 27, 2019 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED The claim for an initial compensable disability rating for dermatitis is remanded. The claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran began experiencing symptoms of tinnitus while in service, and he has continued to experience them since separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from February 2003 to December 2003. In connection with this appeal, he testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in March 2019 at the Oakland, California, RO. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Service connection for tinnitus Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), where a condition in service is noted but is not, in fact, chronic, or where a diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. The continuity of symptomatology provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) has been interpreted as an alternative to service connection only for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Court has specifically held that tinnitus is a type of disorder associated with symptoms capable of lay observation. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). As such, the primary role of the Board in adjudicating the tinnitus claim is to assess the credibility of the Veteran’s statements. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, the Board finds no reason to doubt the Veteran’s credibility. Given this conclusion, the Board will review his statements as to the etiology of his tinnitus. At the March 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran credibly reported that he started noticing ringing in his ears during his active duty service as a motor vehicle operator and following weapons training and that it continues to the present day. As such, the criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met and the Veteran’s claim is granted. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. An initial compensable disability rating for dermatitis is remanded. At the March 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was scheduled to receive treatment for his skin disability on March 28, 2019. However, the most recent VA medical treatment records within the claims file are dated March 2018. As all outstanding records are needed prior to adjudication, the Board remands this appeal for further development. 2. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran testified at his March 2019 Board hearing that he experienced acoustic trauma during his military service and currently has symptoms of hearing loss as a result. He has not yet been provided with an examination. This should be done. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records, specifically those related to the treatment of his dermatitis. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination. The examiner should answer the following questions: a) Does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of hearing loss for VA purposes pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385? Why or why not? b) If so, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the hearing loss either began during or was otherwise caused by his military service? Why or why not? MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Yoo, 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.