Citation Nr: 21003520 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-45 430 DATE: January 21, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and to include depression is remanded. Service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. Service connection for a left hip disability is remanded. Service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. Service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. Service connection for headaches, to include as due to head trauma and as due to a psychiatric disability is remanded. Service connection for a head injury is remanded. Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his tinnitus is related to his in-service noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 2001 to August 2005. This matter is before the Board on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a December 2020 hearing. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is related to his in-service noise exposure. His military occupational specialty (MOS) while in-service was that of master at arms, which the Veteran has described as military police aboard ships. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current tinnitus disability that is related to noise exposure in service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases, including tinnitus, will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic (reliably diagnosed) in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137. The Board finds that the first two elements have been satisfied. The Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus, a disability capable of lay observation. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). He has competently and credibly reported current tinnitus symptoms. See December 2020 hearing transcript. The Veteran competently and credibly reported that his military noise exposure consisted of ship noise and combat training noise which is consistent with his MOS as noted on his DD 214. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Regarding the third element, nexus, evidence consists of the Veteran’s lay statements and a February 2016 VA examination. The VA examiner stated that the etiology of the Veteran’s tinnitus was at least as likely as not related to an in-service head injury, after which he began noticing ringing in the ears. The Veteran has stated that his tinnitus began in-service and that he now has constant ringing in his ears. See February 2016 VA examination; December 2020 hearing transcript. The Board finds the Veteran’s statements both competent and credible. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). The Veteran has competently stated that he experienced tinnitus in service and since service, and tinnitus is a purely subjective disability. Further, the VA examiner opined that the tinnitus was at least as likely as not related to an in-service head injury. Therefore, the Board finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). (Continued on the next page)   REASONS FOR REMAND Service connection for psychiatric disability, bilateral hip disability, left knee disability, bilateral foot disability, headaches, head injury, and lumbar spine disability At a December 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he has the above listed conditions as a result of service. The Board finds that VA examinations are needed to properly assess the Veteran’s claims. Further, the Board finds that further attempts should be made to obtain the Veterans service treatment records (STRs). While a December 2015 email indicates STRs were not found, the February 2016 VA examiner for hearing loss and tinnitus stated he reviewed STRs and noted some in the examination report. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate any pertinent VA or private medical records that are not already of record with the claims file, including the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs). All attempts to obtain STRs should be noted in the file. If the RO finds that further attempts to locate STRs would be futile, a memo explaining efforts should be associated with the file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA orthopedic examination to determine the nature and etiology of any disability of the hips, left knee, feet, and low back. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. A complete history of onset and symptoms should be elicited from the Veteran. Any tests and studies deemed necessary should be conducted and all findings should be reported in detail. For each disability diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely not (50 percent or greater probability) that it had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service, including as a result of injuries sustained during combat training. The examiner should also opine whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed disability was caused or aggravated by a psychiatric disability, including posttraumatic stress disorder. The rationale for all opinions must be provided. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any psychiatric disability found, including depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. A complete history of onset and symptoms should be elicited from the Veteran. All indicated tests should be conducted and all findings reported in detail. For each psychiatric condition diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely not (50 percent or greater probability) that it had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service. The rationale for all opinions must be provided. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the claimed headaches and head injury. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. A complete history of onset and symptoms should be elicited from the Veteran. Any tests and studies deemed necessary should be conducted and all findings should be reported in detail. For every disability diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely not (50 percent or greater probability) that it had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service, including being knocked out as a result of combat training as alleged by the Veteran. The examiner should also opine whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed disability was caused or aggravated by a psychiatric disability, including posttraumatic stress disorder. The rationale for all opinions must be provided. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Ahmad, 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.