Citation Nr: 21068494 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 18-03 417 DATE: November 10, 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 bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to acoustic trauma sustained during service. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to acoustic trauma sustained during service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 April 1969 to February 1971. In November 2021, a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned. Service Connection Bilateral hearing loss and Tinnitus The Veteran contends that service connection should be established for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus as he was exposed to acoustic trauma while in service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Specifically, a review of the Veteran's service personnel records shows that he served in the Republic of Vietnam and is in receipt of a Combat Infantryman Badge. Accordingly, it is not in dispute that he was exposed to acoustic trauma in service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d). What he must still show to establish service connection is that he has a current disability of hearing loss and tinnitus, which are related to the presumed acoustic trauma in service. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) show that at the time of his entrance into service, he had normal audiometric pure tone thresholds. No audiometric testing was conducted at the time of his separation from service. After service, the Veteran was provided a VA audiometric evaluation in January 2016, which resulted in diagnoses of sensorineural hearing loss in each ear and tinnitus. The examiner stated that an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus could not be rendered without resorting to speculation. At the November 2021 hearing before the Board, the Veteran testified that his ringing in the ears started in service and that this made hearing difficult. In support of his claim, the Veteran has submitted a June 2021 medical opinion from his private audiologist who noted that the Veteran had a history of being an indirect fire infantryman in combat during service where he was exposed to gunfire from several weapons systems, including machine guns, recoilless rifles, rifles and pistols. The Veteran had no history of wearing hearing protection during this time. Audiometric testing revealed mild-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in each ear. The Veteran also had a diagnosis of tinnitus. The examiner opined that the hearing loss and tinnitus were at least as likely as not the result of his time in the military service with noise exposure over two years. The examiner went on to state that the Veteran's occupational and recreational noise exposure did contribute some to the present hearing loss, but that the Veteran's military specialty and length of time in service made it at least as likely as not that the current diagnoses of hearing loss and tinnitus were residuals of his in-service noise exposure. As noted above, the January 2016 VA examination report shows the Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. On this question there is no probative opinion against the claim, only the single opinion by the Veteran's private audiologist in favor of the claim. The VA opinion regarding etiology was that no opinion could be rendered without resorting to speculation. By contrast, the private audiologist rendered a positive nexus opinion with rationale that the Veteran's exposure to numerous weapons as an indirect fire specialist made it at least as likely as not that the hearing loss and tinnitus were service related. (Continued on the next page) Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Joseph P. Gervasio 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.