Citation Nr: 20005950 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 17-23 820 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Service connection for a cardiovascular disorder. Service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Service connection for asbestosis. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from July 1962 to June 1965. 2. Tinnitus has been continuous since service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Tinnitus was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified at an October 2019 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to acoustic trauma during service that caused his tinnitus, and that it has persisted since that time. Initially, tinnitus was diagnosed in an October 2014 VA treatment noted. Therefore, tinnitus is currently shown. Reports of his symptoms are also well-documented throughout VA treatment records. Thus, the first element of service connection, a current diagnosis, is met. Next, the evidence supports a finding of in-service acoustic noise exposure. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that he was frequently exposed to gun fire and missiles without hearing protection during his active duty. A veteran is competent to report that which he perceives through the use of his senses. As such, the second element of service connection has been met. Further, the Veteran’s statements are consistent with the nature of his service, as a radarman. His DD-214 reflects that his related civilian occupation was as an airport control operator. Further, there is no evidence of record which tends to contradict his testimony. As such, the second element of service connection has been met. As to continuity, the Veteran testified that he experienced i ringing in his ears since service. While there is an absence of complaints or treatment for tinnitus for many years after service separation, the Board has resolved reasonable doubt in his favor and finds that he had continuous symptoms of tinnitus since service separation and meets the requirements of presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Because the Board is granting service connection on a presumptive basis based on continuous symptoms of tinnitus since service separation, all other service connection theories are rendered moot. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). REASONS FOR REMAND As to a cardiovascular disorder, the Veteran contends the USS Galveston docked in Subic Bay, Philippines in April 1964, for a period of four or five days in order to make repairs. He stated that he stepped in a substance which he later realized was Agent Orange while on shore watch as part of his duties Bay. Additionally, he testified that he witnessed the unloading of 55-gallon drums of Agent Orange off of a supply ship onto the dock in Subic Bay. However, the proper development steps have been taken with respect to the Veteran’s claim of possible Agent Orange exposure in the Philippines. A remand for further development is necessary to make a fully-informed decision on this matter. As to COPD, a November 2015 examiner found that COPD was less likely than not related to asbestos exposure in service and suggested that it was due to a long history of smoking. On the other hand, a September 2019 opinion found that it was. However, neither opinion offered a rational. As such, a medical opinion with a rationale should be obtained. As to asbestosis, the November 2015 examination found no evidence of asbestosis; however, June 2016 and September 2019 private clinicians diagnosed asbestosis and opined that it was a result of his exposure to asbestos during service. Although an opinion was provided, no thorough rationale accompanied it. As such, a medical opinion with a rationale should be obtained. As to hearing loss, a September 2019 private audiologist diagnosed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and opined that, it was as least as likely as not (at least 50 % probable) that “some of” the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was caused by or a result of his noise exposure while in the Navy. However, this opinion is speculative and without rationale or citation to the service record. As such, a medical opinion and rationale should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain all outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran’s claims, specifically VA treatment records that have not been associated with the claims file. 2. Take appropriate development actions to ascertain possible herbicide exposure while serving aboard the USS Galveston in Subic Bay in the Philippines, in April 1964. All steps should be taken to ascertain whether herbicides were used or stored in Subic Bay in mid-1964. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to assess the nature and etiology of a current respiratory disorder. The clinician is asked to address the following: • Does the Veteran have a diagnosis of asbestosis? • Does the Veteran have a diagnosis of COPD? • Is it as likely as not that asbestosis (if found) is related to service? • Is it as like as not that COPD is related to service or to asbestosis exposure? 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to assess the nature and etiology of bilateral hearing loss. The clinician is asked to address whether hearing loss is as likely as not related to service. 5. The claims folder must be provided to the examiners and a rationale should be provided for all opinions offered. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Grzeczkowicz 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.