Citation Nr: 20024809 Decision Date: 04/09/20 Archive Date: 04/09/20 DOCKET NO. 17-22 098 DATE: April 9, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to military noise exposure. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his tinnitus is etiologically related to military noise exposure. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from January 1985 to December 1988. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2016 rating decision of the Atlanta, Georgia, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2019, the Board reopened and then denied, the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (Court). In December 2019, the Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the issues to the Board pursuant to a joint motion for partial remand (JMPR). Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his current hearing loss and tinnitus are related to noise exposure sustained while working near the flight deck in service. He also noted his bunk was located a deck below the catapult. Based on the Veteran’s competent and credible statements and evidence of his in-service occupation, the Board finds that exposure to hazardous noise levels to be consistent with the places and circumstances of his service. Therefore, the remaining inquiry is whether there is a nexus, or link, between the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and such in-service noise exposure. The Veteran’s STRs were reviewed and reveal normal hearing upon entrance and exit examination. The Veteran was enrolled in a hearing conservation program during service. In a June 1986 and July 1986 testing, the audiologist indicated there was a significant threshold shift during testing. In July 2013, the Veteran was afforded an examination and was found to have sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus. He reported difficulty hearing. The examiner indicated his tinnitus is at least as likely as not a symptom associated with hearing loss. The examiner opined that based on normal hearing during and at separation from service it is less likely than not that his current hearing loss and tinnitus is due to military noise exposure. The July 2013 examiner based the negative nexus opinion solely on the basis of normal hearing at entrance and separation, without acknowledgment of the Veteran’s lay contentions. In an August 2013 decision, the RO denied service connection for hearing loss. In January 2015, the RO denied service connection for tinnitus and determined new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for hearing loss. At an October 2016 examination, the Veteran reported working as an Aviation boatswain’s mate, an occupational specialty with high probability of exposure to loud noises. He reported exposure to loud noises from the flight deck and aircraft and that his bunk was located below the catapult. He denied a history of civilian noise exposure. He reported the onset of tinnitus to be in the mid-1990s. The examiner opined that though the Veteran served in a capacity with a high probability of exposure to loud noises, and review of the STRs revealed the Veteran had normal hearing in both ears at service entrance and separation. Further, he stated the Veteran did not experience a significant shift in service. The examiner concluded it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus were caused by or a result of military service. In October 2016 the RO determined new and material evidence had not been received to reopen the claims of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus. In a February 2019 Board decision, the Board reopened the claims and denied service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus. Following an appeal to the Court, in December 2019 a JMPR was issued vacating and remanding the denial of service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran has consistently asserted that he has hearing loss and tinnitus as a result of his time in service. Hearing loss and tinnitus may be service connected if the evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s current hearing loss and tinnitus began in service and he had continued symptoms since. Further the Veteran was enrolled in a hearing conservation program during service, and there is evidence of a significant threshold shift during service. Although there is no positive opinion of record, the Veteran has conceded noise exposure, a currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss disability for VA benefit purposes, tinnitus, and complaints of hearing loss and tinnitus since service. There is competent and credible testimony indicating ongoing hearing problems since service. As such, all reasonable doubt is resolved in the Veteran’s favor, and service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is granted. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Skiouris, 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.