Citation Nr: 21066136 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 19-01 275 DATE: October 28, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, his bilateral tinnitus is etiologically related to his active service. 2. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, his bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110. 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from March 1986 to January 1992, from October 2001 to September 2002, and from January 2003 to January 2004. In April 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Service Connection for Bilateral Tinnitus and Bilateral Hearing Loss Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, service connection can also be established through application of a statutory presumption for chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system, such as tinnitus and hearing loss, when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a chronic disease is not manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation of service, then, generally, a showing of "continuity of symptoms" after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Furthermore, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Veteran contends that his current bilateral hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus symptoms began while he was in active service. Tinnitus is a disorder associated with symptoms that are uniquely capable of lay observation. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). As such, the primary role of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in adjudicating these claims is to assess the credibility of the Veteran's statements. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board has no reason to doubt the credibility of the Veteran's lay statements that he currently experiences tinnitus in both ears. Thus, the current disability elements of these claims are met. The question remaining in this case is whether a causal relationship, or nexus, exists between the Veteran's current tinnitus and his active service, or whether the disability onset therein. As to the Veteran's claims for service connection for his bilateral hearing loss, VA hearing loss and tinnitus examinations dated February 2018 and April 2018 both show that he has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. Thus, the current disability prongs of these claims are also met, and the remaining question is whether his bilateral hearing loss is medically linked to any incident of service or whether it onset therein. The Veteran has consistently reported that he began to experience symptoms of bilateral tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss during his active service. He reported this in multiple written statements he has submitted over the course of the appeal in support of his claims and testified to this at the April 2021 Board hearing. He has explained that he denied experiencing such symptoms in service, as he thought they would go away at the time and did not realize they were symptoms of chronic conditions. The Board finds the Veteran's statements about his tinnitus and hearing loss symptoms and their onset credible, as he has consistently reported the same onset as being in service. Further, his lay reports are sufficient to establish service connection for his claims. The Board recognizes that the February 2018 VA examiner opined against service connection for the Veteran's bilateral tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss. However, the April 2018 VA hearing loss and tinnitus examiner opined in favor of such. Even if the Board were to disregard the fact that the February 2018 examiner's negative nexus opinion is not highly probative because it did not take into account the Veteran's competent lay reports regarding the history and onset of his tinnitus and hearing loss symptoms, the contradictory nexus opinions merely place the evidence of a medical nexus in equipoise. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Thus, affording any benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the Board finds that he has been experiencing symptoms of bilateral tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss since his active service. Accordingly, service connection is warranted for his bilateral tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss, as they are current disabilities for which the symptoms were onset during his active service. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Davidoski, 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.