Citation Nr: 21069586 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 18-23 903 DATE: November 18, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's tinnitus had its onset in service and is related to such service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army from January 1971 to January 1973. This claim comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran and his spouse testified at a November 2021 Board hearing before the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has not yet been associated with the file; however, a copy of the transcript will be associated with the claims file in the ordinary course of business. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran asserts that his current tinnitus had its onset during service. For the reasons outlined below, the Board agrees and finds his tinnitus is related to his active-duty service. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active-duty military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and current disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 3.303; see also, Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). In addition, certain disabilities, including organic diseases of the nervous system such as tinnitus, are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 272 (2015). Turning to the evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran suffered from acoustic trauma when exposed to loud noise in service, to include exposure to engines noise, the noise of hand grenades and other weaponry, and the noise of firing ranges without hearing protection in his military occupational specialty of armorer. Further, the competent and credible evidence of record shows the Veteran's currently reported tinnitus began during service and has continued since that time. Specifically, the Veteran testified at his November 2021 hearing that his current tinnitus began during service. He reported the same during a July 2016 VA examination. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and recurrence of his tinnitus, and the Board finds his testimony credible. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also, Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Collectively, the evidence of record supports a finding that it is at least as likely not that the Veteran's current tinnitus began in service. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994). In so finding, the Board acknowledges that a July 2016 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's current tinnitus is a symptom of his diagnosed bilateral hearing loss. However, the examiner's opinion did not adequately address the Veteran's contentions of in-service acoustic trauma or his competent, credible report of experiencing tinnitus in and since service. Thus, in spite of this negative evidence, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, service connection for tinnitus is warranted, and the claim is granted. 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. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran's only VA examination of record does not provide an adequate nexus opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss. Specifically, the July 2016 VA examiner's opinion is based on the Veteran's hearing being normal at separation. The examiner also cited the Veteran's post-service occupational noise exposure. However, the examiner did not discuss the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms of hearing loss during service, nor did she address the Veteran's report that he did not wear hearing protection during service and did wear hearing protection in his post-service occupation. Notably, hearing loss need not manifest during service in order for an award of service connection to be granted and an adequate medical opinion "must opine as to whether or not any current hearing disability can be related to in-service noise exposure, not whether hearing loss was demonstrated in service." Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 164 (1993). For the foregoing reasons, a new VA examination is needed on remand. (Continued on the next page) The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature, extent, onset and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. The claims file must be provided to the examiner for review. Following review of the claims file, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss onset in, or is otherwise etiologically related to, his active service, to include his conceded noise exposure therein. The fact that the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits at separation from service should not be the sole basis for a negative opinion. The examiner should also specifically consider and discuss (1) the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his bilateral hearing loss, to include his report of experiencing some symptoms of hearing loss immediately following in-service noise exposure and within several years after his separation from service, and (2) his report that he did not wear hearing protection during service and did wear hearing protection in his post-service occupation. L. STEPANICK Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. McDonald