Citation Nr: 21005213 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-50 202 DATE: January 29, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus began in service and has continued to the present. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107, 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from October 1987 to June 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2015 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A Board hearing was held in January 2020. A transcript is of record. During his United States Marine Corps service, the Veteran served in the field artillery. He asserts that his tinnitus is related to noise exposure during service. He has testified that he first experienced ringing in his ears during service, and that it continued to the present. See Hearing Tr. at 5. Entitlement to VA compensation may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (wartime service), 1131 (peacetime service); 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Having carefully reviewed the record, the Board has determined that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. In this regard, the Board observes that the Veteran’s occupational specialty as a field artillery cannoneer would have exposed him to hazardous noise. More importantly, the Veteran has competently reported that he experienced ringing in his ears during service, and that he has experienced that symptom since service and to the present. Because tinnitus is a condition capable of lay observation, and because the Veteran’s reports are credible, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). REASONS FOR REMAND Service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran also seeks service connection for his bilateral hearing loss. He has testified that he noticed problems with his hearing within four or five years of his separation from service. See Hearing Tr. at 6. Service treatment records contain reports of audiological testing at enlistment in April 1987 and a reference audiogram dated in October 1987. There is no report of separation examination of record. On VA examination in March 2015, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not related to service. He reasoned that audiological testing did not demonstrate any hearing loss during the Veteran’s time in service, despite VA’s concession of noise exposure. It does not appear that this examiner considered the Veteran’s assertions regarding the type and severity of his noise exposure, or his report of noticing difficulty with hearing within four or five years of separation. As the examiner did not address the Veteran’s competent statements regarding his history and symptoms, or the absence of audiological testing at separation, the Board concludes that the opinion is not adequate for the purpose of deciding the Veteran’s claim. An additional examination is therefore necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral hearing loss. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to noise exposure during service. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s duties in the field artillery (with associated noise exposure) and the Veteran’s statements that he noticed hearing problems within 4-5 years of service separation. In rendering this opinion, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. The complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. 2. Then, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded an appropriate period within which to respond thereto. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.