Citation Nr: 21066815 Decision Date: 11/02/21 Archive Date: 11/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-50 307A DATE: November 2, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his current bilateral hearing loss onset during his service and has continued since then. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his tinnitus onset during his service and has continued since then. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1988 to July 1989. During the current appeal, and specifically in April 2019, the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) remanded this appeal for further evidentiary development. Service Connection 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. § 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 bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, 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). Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss, for which he has a current undisputed diagnosis sufficient for VA compensation purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (stipulating that, for the purpose of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing is considered a "disability" when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the above frequencies are 26 decibels or higher; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent). See also January 2020 VA audiological examination. The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to explosions and loud gunfire while training as a combat medic at Camp Lejeune, which he believes caused his current hearing loss. While his separation examination does not list hearing loss or any ear conditions, his service treatment records show that, in January 1989, he sought treatment for decreased hearing and ear pain. After separation from service in August 1990, he reported experiencing a decrease in hearing, especially in his left ear. He was afforded a VA examination in August 1990, which determined his hearing to be within normal limits at that time. Further, his VA treatment records show that, at a September 2017 otolaryngology consultation, he reported that he has been experiencing hearing loss for at least 30 years. In January 2020, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner confirmed the Veteran's diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss but determined that it was less likely than not caused by his service. The examiner explained that the Veteran's hearing at separation and in August 1990 was normal and that the Veteran had a positive history of occupational noise exposure as a civilian. While the Board cannot ignore or disregard the VA examiner's medical conclusions, the Board is free to assess medical evidence and is not compelled to accept a medical opinion. See Willis v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 66 (1991); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992). Here, the examiner failed to address the Veteran's reported in-service noise exposure as well as his medical history, including reports of hearing loss during service and since separation therefrom. As such, the Board finds this VA opinion to be inadequate and affords it little, if any, probative value. In light of the above, the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss began in, or is a result of, his service. Resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss onset during service and has continued since then. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Thus, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Tinnitus The Veteran also seeks service connection for tinnitus, which he asserts is the result of in-service noise exposure. Specifically, he reported that he was exposed to explosions and loud gunfire while training as a combat medic at Camp Lejeune. Tinnitus is a type of disorder associated with symptoms that are uniquely capable of lay observation. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The primary role of the Board in adjudicating the tinnitus claim is to assess the credibility of the Veteran's statements. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). VA treatment records show that at a September 2017 otolaryngology consultation, the Veteran reported that he has been experiencing tinnitus for at least 30 years. In January 2020, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely than not related to his active service, despite the fact that he had reported that his tinnitus onset during service. As previously noted herein, the Board finds this opinion to be inadequate as it failed to address the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his symptoms, his in-service noise exposure, and his medical history. Regarding the Veteran's tinnitus, the negative nexus opinion was based on the determination that there was no evidence of acoustic trauma because the Veteran's hearing thresholds were normal at separation. This is factually inaccurate, as a person can have tinnitus without hearing loss and vice versa. The Board finds the Veteran's statements as to the onset of his tinnitus credible. His statements alone are sufficient to establish the criteria for service connection for tinnitus. While there is no objective evidence of tinnitus in service, the Veteran asserts that he developed tinnitus in service and has had tinnitus since then. As noted above, he is competent to give evidence about observable symptoms such as tinnitus and noise exposure. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465. Resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that his tinnitus onset during service and has continued since (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) then. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 49. Therefore, service connection for tinnitus is granted. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Benson, 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.