Citation Nr: 21062404 Decision Date: 10/07/21 Archive Date: 10/07/21 DOCKET NO. 17-57 998 DATE: October 7, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The most probative evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's tinnitus had its onset during active duty service, and continued since. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1975 to January 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is of record. 1. Service connection for tinnitus Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. When a condition may be diagnosed by its unique and readily identifiable features, as is the case with tinnitus, the presence of the disorder is not a determination "medical in nature," and is capable of lay observation. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). When a claim involves a diagnosis based on purely subjective complaints, the Board is within its province to weigh the Veteran's testimony and determine whether it supports a finding of service incurrence and continued symptoms since service. Id. If it does, such testimony is enough to establish service connection. Id. The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to in-service noise exposure during his 13 years on sea duty working as a boiler technician. During the July 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he had ringing in his ears during his active service and that he has had ringing in his ears ever since then. Based on the Veteran's work as a boiler technician, the RO noted a high probability that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise during service. In addition, the Veteran testified that he was not given hearing protection during his early days in service. The Veteran's service treatment records contain no record that he was provided with hearing protection before 1987. The Veteran underwent a VA audiology examination in October 2016, and although the examiner provided a negative opinion regarding whether the Veteran's tinnitus was related to service, the examiner relied solely on the fact that the Veteran's 1995 separation examination showed normal hearing thresholds. The Board finds the Veteran's testimony that his tinnitus manifested during service and continued since to be competent and credible. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current tinnitus was incurred in service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND Bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss based on in-service noise exposure. A VA audiology examination in October 2016 indicated right ear pure tone thresholds of 15, 15, 20, 20, 20 decibels at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz, respectively. The Veteran's speech discrimination score was 96 percent in the right ear. The examiner indicated left ear pure tone thresholds of 10, 10, 15, 20, 30 decibels at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz, respectively. The Veteran's speech discrimination score was 98 percent in the left ear. These audiometric findings do not meet the criteria to establish a hearing loss disability in either ear under VA regulations. The Veteran has submitted a July 2021 audiological evaluation performed by a private treatment provider that appears to show right ear hearing loss per VA standards; however, the audiometric findings are not adequate for VA purposes as the test was conducted by a hearing instrument specialist rather than an audiologist. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 ("An examination for hearing impairment for VA purposes must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a puretone audiometry test."). Accordingly, remand for an updated VA examination is warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine whether he suffers from a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes. All indicated tests should be conducted and the results reported. After a review of the claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that a hearing loss disability, if extant, is related to service. The examiner should explain why or why not, to include addressing why a current hearing loss disability is/is not a delayed post-traumatic residual of hazardous noise exposure during service, including the Veteran's 13 years on sea duty as a boiler technician. 2. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Jesteadt, 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.