Citation Nr: 20000079 Decision Date: 01/02/20 Archive Date: 01/02/20 DOCKET NO. 18-53 885 DATE: January 2, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT Tinnitus is etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active naval service from June 2001 to June 2005. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from February 2017 and March 2017 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection – Tinnitus The Veteran contends that he has tinnitus as a result of acoustic trauma sustained in active service. Specifically, the Veteran has claimed hazardous noise exposure while performing duties as a deck seaman and boatswain’s mate. The Veteran reported that he was exposed to the noise of aircraft and gunfire. A review of the Veteran’s service records shows that his military occupational specialty (MOS) during active duty was a Boatswain Mate. The Board finds that the Veteran’s reported noise exposure is consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. Therefore, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of tinnitus while the Veteran was in active service. However, the Veteran was administered numerous audiograms while in service as a part of a hearing conservation program as a result of routine exposure to high noise levels and impulse noise. Regardless, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced tinnitus while in active service and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced tinnitus and that his symptoms have continued since service. The Veteran further reported that his tinnitus did not start in 2014 as reflected on the December 2016 VA audiology report. 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 December 2016, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological evaluation. At that time, the examiner diagnosed tinnitus. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus was less likely as not caused by or a result of military noise exposure. In this regard, the examiner noted that the Veteran reported the onset of his tinnitus in 2014, after his separation from service. The Board finds the December 2016 VA audiology opinion to be inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiner did not provide an adequate supporting rationale for the opinion provided, nor give appropriate consideration to the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinions are not adequate, they cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. 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). Here, as noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify tinnitus, and his statements have been found credible. In sum, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma in active service. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported tinnitus in service and since. The Veteran has current diagnoses of tinnitus. There is no competent VA medical opinion of record against the claims. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claims 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 (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran contends that he has a psychiatric disability, to include social anxiety, depression, anxiety, mood swings, and suicidal ideation due to service. The service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of psychiatric disability while the Veteran was in active service. However, the record reflects that the Veteran has current diagnoses of psychiatric disabilities. The record further indicates that the Veteran battled anxiety issues both during service and since. The Veteran reported symptoms of trembling hands, shortness of breath, and a racing heartbeat that felt like it was coming out of his chest. The Veteran asserts that his anxiety attacks occurred when there were unexpected situations that involved dealing with authority, stress, and conflict in service and out of service. In light of the Veteran’s report of psychiatric symptoms occurring during service and his current diagnoses of psychiatric disabilities, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present psychiatric disability. McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Additionally, current treatment records should be identified and obtained before a decision is made regarding the remaining issue on appeal. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by a psychiatrist or psychologist to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present psychiatric disability. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies must be performed. Based on the examination results and review of the record, the examiner should first identify all psychiatric disabilities present during the pendency of the appeal, or proximate thereto. For each identified psychiatric disability identified, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that such disability had its onset during the Veteran’s active service or is otherwise etiologically related to such service. In forming the opinions, the examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Confirm that the VA examination report and all medical opinions provided comport with this remand and undertake any other development determined to be warranted. 4. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ivan Franklin 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.