Citation Nr: 20021075 Decision Date: 03/24/20 Archive Date: 03/24/20 DOCKET NO. 18-51 196 DATE: March 24, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to his active service. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus is etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.385 (2018). 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus secondary to service-connected hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the United States Air Force from July 1970 to January 1976. The Board notes that the Veteran has perfected an appeal for the claims for service connection for diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, hypertension and ischemic heart disease. However, in his June 2019 Form 9 for these issues, he requested a hearing at a local VA office. Subsequently, a June 2019 correspondence was sent to the Veteran informing him that he has been placed on the waiting list for a hearing. As such, remand is not necessary to schedule a hearing, and those issues are not ready for Board review Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The record reflects a current diagnosis for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran’s Form DD-214 also indicates a military occupation specialty (MOS) as an aerospace equipment repairman, which the Board finds has a high probability of noise exposure. Thus, the Board concedes in-service noise exposure, and, accordingly, the remaining issue is a nexus. The Board acknowledges the negative etiological opinion provided by the September 2016 VA examiner. Essentially, the examiner reasoned that the Veteran had normal hearing during service and that there is no delayed onset between noise exposure and hearing loss. However, the examiner did not consider the Veteran’s lay assertions regarding his hearing loss. As such, the opinion is not adequate. While there is also no positive opinion of record linking the Veteran’s hearing loss to his active service, the Veteran has indicated, in sum, that he has been suffering from symptoms of hearing loss starting in service and continuing to the present day. In weighing the Veteran’s statements, the Board notes that he is competent to assert the presence of symptoms subject to lay observation. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board also has no reason to doubt the credibility of the Veteran’s statements and, as such, finds them probative. Given the Veteran’s credible statements of continuing symptoms and the lack of an adequate negative nexus opinion, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types, and circumstances of his service as shown by his service records, the official history of each organization in which he served, his medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence). Accordingly, the appeal for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran also seeks service connection for tinnitus. The September 2016 VA examination indicates a diagnosis for tinnitus, and the examiner linked the Veteran’s tinnitus to his hearing loss reasoning that it is a known symptom of hearing loss. As this opinion is consistent with accepted medical standards, the Board finds it probative. Accordingly, as the Veteran is now service connected for bilateral hearing loss and a nexus has been established to his tinnitus, service connection for tinnitus secondary to hearing loss is granted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Smith, 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.