Citation Nr: 21075869 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-38 695 DATE: December 21, 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, the probative evidence of record demonstrates the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to noise exposure during his active service. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the probative evidence of record demonstrates the Veteran's tinnitus began during his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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. §§ 1110, 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 February 1964 to January 1967. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran originally requested a Board hearing, which was scheduled for July 2021. However, in July 2021 correspondence, the Veteran withdrew his request for a hearing. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss that is related to noise exposure during his 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). The Veteran contends that he was exposed to noise from mortars and heavy equipment firing on a daily basis while in Germany during his active service. His DD Form 214 and service personnel records reflect his military occupational specialty (MOS) was that of an Armor Crewman and service personnel records (SPRs) reflect that his principal duty from July 1964 to September 1966 was that of a gunner, thereby supporting his statements of exposure to excessive noise during active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); see also Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). Although the February 1964 Report of Medical History included a notation of decreased hearing in the left ear, the February 1964 entrance examination revealed no findings of decreased hearing or hearing loss in either ear. Therefore, he is presumed to have been in sound condition upon his entrance into active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1111; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). Service department audiometric readings prior to October 31, 1967, must be converted from American Standards Association (ASA) units to International Standard Organization (ISO/ANSI) units. Thus, the results of the audiometric testing at the February 1964 entrance examination, converted from ASA to ISO/ANSI units, are as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 10 10 20 5 LEFT 15 10 15 20 15 The results of the audiometric testing at the September 1966 separation examination, converted from ASA to ISO/ANSI units, are as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 15 20 - 15 LEFT 20 30 25 - 20 Accordingly, the February 1964 entrance examination and September 1966 separation examination demonstrate observable increased threshold shifts in the right and left ears during active service. VA medical records, including the October 2015 and March 2016 VA examinations, and the June 2016 private audiology report demonstrate the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss which meets the criteria for a hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Although the October 2015 VA examiner concluded that she could not determine a medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's right ear and left ear hearing loss without resorting to speculation and the same VA examiner in March 2016 found the Veteran's right ear and left ear hearing loss were not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event in military service, she relied mostly on the in-service audiology evaluations, which had not been converted to ISO/ANSI units during her assessments. In a June 2016 private audiology evaluation and opinion, a private audiologist diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral hearing loss and concluded, based on the audiometric findings and the Veteran's reported history of noise exposure in service, that bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were at least as likely as not related to excessive noise exposure during active service. She explained that excessive noise exposure without hearing protection, as reported by the Veteran during his active service, was associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. She also considered his MOS as having a high probability for noise exposure and that there was a strong correlation of tinnitus as a result of noise exposure. Taken together, these records, at the very least, place the evidence in a state of relative equipoise as to whether bilateral hearing loss was incurred during the Veteran's active service. Therefore, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus that began during 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). As noted above, the probative evidence of record supports the Veteran's statements of exposure to excessive noise during active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154. Although the October 2015 VA examiner concluded that she could not determine a medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's tinnitus without resorting to speculation and the same VA examiner in March 2016 found the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely than not caused by or a result of an event in military service, she failed to consider the Veteran's lay statements. In a June 2016 private audiology evaluation and opinion, a private audiologist diagnosed the Veteran with tinnitus and concluded, based on the audiometric findings and the Veteran's reported history of noise exposure in service, that bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were at least as likely as not related to excessive noise exposure during active service. She explained that excessive noise exposure without hearing protection, as reported by the Veteran during his active service, was associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. She also considered his MOS as having a high probability for noise exposure and that there was a strong correlation of tinnitus as a result of noise exposure. The Board observes the Veteran's lay statements regarding his excessive noise exposure in service with less than adequate hearing protection and that tinnitus has continued since his excessive noise exposure in service are competent and credible evidence of noise exposure during service and that his tinnitus began during his active service and has continued since that time. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); see also Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005); see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); see also Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). Taken together, these records, at the very least, place the evidence in a state of relative equipoise as to whether tinnitus was incurred during the Veteran's active service. Therefore, the Board resolves all doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds the probative evidence of record demonstrates he has a current diagnosis of tinnitus that had its onset during active service. Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3.307, 3.309. See also 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Saira Spicknall, 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.