Citation Nr: 21070810 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 17-38 293 DATE: November 26, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to 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 in-service noise exposure. 2. The Veteran's tinnitus began during active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are 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 duty service from December 1965 to December 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in November 2021. SERVICE CONNECTION 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. The Veteran contends that he has current bilateral hearing loss, which is related to in-service noise exposure, to include as due to bombings, grenades, mortars, and gunfire. See July 2015 VA examination; February 2013 VA treatment record. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to in-service noise exposure. 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). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In addition, service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). In order to prevail on the issue of entitlement to service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of 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 the present disease or injury. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. at 247. Service connection may also be granted for certain chronic diseases if manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of separation from active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Alternatively, service connection may also be granted for chronic conditions that have manifested continuous symptomology since separation of service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran's July 2015 VA examiner noted the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss. The examiner noted the Veteran's MOS of radio and communications security repairer, which had a moderate probability for noise exposure. The Veteran and his spouse testified that his hearing loss began in-service after he came back from Vietnam. Where the evidence for and against a claim is equal, the Board must give the Veteran the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. The Veteran contends that he had an onset of tinnitus in service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that had onset in 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). The Veteran contends that his tinnitus had onset during service, beginning as "cricket type noises" which continued and worsened over time. See July 2017 Form 9. For VA purposes, tinnitus has been specifically found to be a disorder with symptoms that can be identified through lay observation alone. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The Veteran is competent to report that he experiences tinnitus and when it began. This is because a diagnosis of tinnitus requires only personal knowledge as it comes to the Veteran through his senses. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Charles at 374. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current tinnitus arose in service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mookim, Hope P. 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.