Citation Nr: 20004032 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/16/20 DOCKET NO. 19-20 078 DATE: January 16, 2020 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Service connection for tinnitus. is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1977 to June 1980. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. “To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: “(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”-the so-called “nexus” requirement.” Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss, which he contends had its onset in service. Specifically, he maintains that he has bilateral hearing loss is a result of acoustic trauma he experienced while being exposed to high pitched noises at the internal morse code school and being near gunfire at close range during active duty service. See April 2019 Notice of Disagreement; see also July 2019 VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeal. All three elements of service connection are established by the competent and credible lay and medical evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.385; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. See August 2018 Hearing Loss and Tinnitus DBQ. The Veteran’s Report of Separation, Form DD-214, shows his military occupational specialty as intermediate radio operator. In addition, the Veteran provided credible statements that help establish that he was exposed to noise trauma during service and has had decreased hearing acuity since that time. The Board notes that the August 2018 examiner provided a negative nexus opinion regarding the Veteran’s hearing loss and service; however, the examiner noted the Veteran’s MOS had a high probability of hazardous noise exposure. As the evidence shows that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994). 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The competent and credible evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus began during service and have been recurrent since that time. The Veteran competently and credibly reported that he first experiencing tinnitus while attending the school for Morse code and that it has continued ever since. See July VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals; see also November 2019 Appellate Brief. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his tinnitus symptoms and the Board finds his reports credible. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board notes that the August 2018 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s current tinnitus was not related to service; however, because the evidence shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus had their onset in service, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994). Steven D. Reiss Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jacquelynn M. Jordan, Associate 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.