Citation Nr: 21075480 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 19-02 153 DATE: December 20, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's tinnitus is related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from July 1965 to January 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from the August 2018 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared at an October 2021 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is related to his military service. VA treatment records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. The Veteran's personnel records note that the Veteran performed his primary duties as a loadmaster which included loading and unloading of aircraft and other activities involving the flight line. The Veteran also testified at his October 2021 Board hearing that he did not always have hearing protection. The Board notes that tinnitus is a disorder that is readily observable by laypersons and does not require medical expertise to establish its existence. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Furthermore, while the Veteran's service treatment records are negative for complaints of tinnitus, he is nevertheless competent to report a history of tinnitus that began since service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470. In its capacity as a finder of fact, the Board finds the Veteran is credible as to his reports of the recurrence of tinnitus symptoms. He is also competent to comment on the onset and frequency of his tinnitus. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient evidence to establish etiology if the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition and lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran's competent and credible lay evidence is sufficient to establish a nexus between service and tinnitus and therefore service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Thereby, following a thorough review of the evidence of record, and affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board concludes that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service. In August 2018, the Veteran underwent a VA hearing loss examination. The examiner stated that the Veteran is diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is less likely than not related to his military service. The only rationale provided was that the mildness and configuration are not consistent with noise exposure. The Board finds that this rationale is inadequate as the examiner does not take into account the Veteran's lay statements that he did not have adequate hearing protection and spent considerable amounts of time on the flight line. Additionally, the examiner does not provide any indication as to the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. An addendum opinion with an adequate rationale should be obtained. 2. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents during service in Vietnam. The Board notes that the Veteran was stationed in Okinawa, Japan. However, throughout the record the Veteran has stated that his unit spent time on the ground in Vietnam as well as was on planes that transported herbicides. More information is needed before the Board can make a fully informed decision. On remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should attempt to verify the Veteran's statements that his unit spent time on the ground in Vietnam. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service connected disabilities, is remanded. The Veteran contends that his hypertension is related to his military service and specifically secondary to his coronary artery disease. As the Veteran's claim for service connection for coronary artery disease is being remanded, the claim for service connection for hypertension must also be remanded as well. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including in-service conceded noise exposure. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. The examiner should not rely solely on the absence of evidence of in-service treatment or injury in the Veteran's service treatment records as a basis for any given opinion. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 2. Attempt to verify the Veteran's asserted in-service exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. If there is still insufficient information to verify exposure to herbicide agents, issue a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of VA's inability to verify the in-service herbicide agent exposure. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the following: a) whether the Veteran's hypertension is at least as likely as not related to his military service; and b) proximately due to the Veteran's coronary artery disease; and c) aggravated beyond its natural progression by the Veteran's disability coronary artery disease. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. The examiner should not rely solely on the absence of evidence of in-service treatment or injury in the Veteran's service treatment records as a basis for any given opinion. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 4. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.