Citation Nr: 21065172 Decision Date: 10/25/21 Archive Date: 10/25/21 DOCKET NO. 20-02 274 DATE: October 25, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his bilateral hearing loss disability is related to in-service noise exposure. 2. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his tinnitus is related to in-service noise exposure. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § § 1110, 1131, 1154, 5103A, 5017; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § § 1110, 1131, 1154, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Service Connection The Veteran attributes his bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus to his in-service exposure to noise associated with his duties while in service. He served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1976 to June 1979 and in the United States Air Force from October 1981 to October 1985. He served as rifleman and security police and used a rifle shot gun, a machine gun, a 45 pistol and a hand grenade. He also worked on a flight line with F-4 aircrafts, C-5, and C-141. The aircraft caused very loud noise and he was not given earplugs. His ears began ringing while in the Air Force. See November 2018 correspondence. This reported noise exposure is consistent with the Veteran's Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active-Duty forms (DD Form 214), which lists his primary specialty as a security officer and rifleman. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to report in-service noise exposure, including being around jets and other hazardous noise, and that he experienced hearing difficulties and ringing in his ears during active duty. He is also competent to report first noticing ringing in his ears after being exposed to such hazardous noise, and that he experienced hearing problems and tinnitus since active duty. Furthermore, the Board finds his reports of in-service noise exposure credible as such are consistent with the type and circumstances of his military service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran's lay statements concerning his exposure to noise during his military service, and his lay statements concerning the onset, nature, and progression of his hearing problems and tinnitus are both competent and credible lay evidence of such. Also, of note, the September 2018 VA examiner conceded in service noise exposure. The Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination in September 2018 and it shows a hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The Board acknowledges that although the VA audiologist found bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes, when the examiner provided an etiology opinion, she stated that pure tone testing completed that day was unreliable and not considered valid for rating purposes. Notwithstanding, the examiner still provided an etiology opinion and at least for VA purposes concluded the Veteran has a current hearing loss disability. Also, of note, in the September 2018 rating decision the RO concluded there is a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. Therefore, the first element of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, a current disability, is satisfied. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Regarding the tinnitus disability, the Board finds that the Veteran has provided competent, probative statements describing symptoms consistent with tinnitus. He described the tinnitus as "ringing." Moreover, given the nature of the tinnitus disability the tinnitus disability, the Veteran is competent to say that he has tinnitus, and the Board finds no reason to question his credibility as to that fact. For the tinnitus claim, a lay person is competent to describe his symptoms of ringing in the ears throughout the years. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). As such, the first element of service connection for tinnitus, a current disability, is satisfied. The Board acknowledges the September 2018 VA examination wherein the examiner did not provide an etiology opinion, concluding that the Veteran did not have tinnitus. However, as stated above given the nature of tinnitus the Veteran is more than competent to report symptoms such as ringing. Turning to the question of whether there is nexus, or link, between the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability, his tinnitus and his in-service noise exposure, the Board finds that that there is sufficient competent and credible lay evidence to establish that there is a likely continuity of symptoms from the time of service until the present. See C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The September 2018 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss is likely than not caused by or is the result of military noise exposure. The rationale was based on the lack of significant permanent shift in hearing thresholds from entrance to separation and lack of reporting of complaint/treatment in service. As stated above, the September 2018 VA examiner did not provide an etiology opinion for tinnitus. A letter dated November 2018 from the Veteran's private provider was submitted January 2019. The examiner concluded that the audiogram and tympanogram that was performed that day demonstrated sensorineural hearing loss. She stated that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus is as likely as not a result of the noise exposure while he served in the military. The Veteran has provided competent, credible statements describing the onset of his tinnitus and hearing loss, and how it has continued to present. There is evidence of in-service noise exposure. There is one negative opinion of record and one positive opinion of record. As such, the Board finds the positive and negative evidence to be in relative equipoise. Therefore, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's in-service noise exposure did cause his current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Talamantes, 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.