Citation Nr: 21076582 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-15 917 DATE: December 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from June 1966 to February 1969. 2. Bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus have been continuous since duty. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bilateral hearing loss was incurred during service. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2021). 2. Tinnitus was incurred during service. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Service connection may be granted directly as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Hearing loss and tinnitus are recognized by VA as "chronic diseases" under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); therefore, the presumptive provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, and 3.309 apply. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). As the evidence of tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss is similar, they will be analyzed together. Turning to the evidence, hearing loss was noted in a March 2013 VA examination. In this respect, hearing loss is considered a disability for VA purposes when the threshold level in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; when the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores, using the Maryland CNC test, are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Testing results were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg. RIGHT 10 20 75 75 80 62 LEFT 45 60 80 85 90 79 Additionally, the Veteran's speech discrimination scores were 70 percent in the right ear and 60 percent in the left. Therefore, hearing loss is currently shown. Reports of his symptoms are also well-documented throughout VA treatment records. Thus, the first element of service connection a current diagnosis has been met. Additionally, the March 2013 VA examiner confirmed a diagnosis of tinnitus. Thus, the first element of service connection is also met for tinnitus. Next, the evidence supports a finding of in-service acoustic trauma. The Veteran's DD-214 showed his military occupational specialty (MOS) to be as a personnel specialist. It also shows he was assigned to Battery C, Second Battalion, an artillery unit. Further, he explained during his October 2021 Board hearing that while he was assigned to conduct clerical work while stationed in Korea, he continued to participate in live fire and artillery exercises without hearing protection with the rest of his unit. He also described that prior to deployment overseas, he trained with Honest John rockets at Fort Sill and later was training as a cannoneer at Fort Benning. Collectively, the Veteran has competently described several instances of noise exposure during active duty. A veteran is competent to report that which he perceives through the use of his senses. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Additionally, there is no evidence of record which tends to contradict his testimony. As such, the second element of service connection for both disabilities have been met. As to continuity, the Veteran stated he noticed his hearing was worse upon returning from service. He explained he was having trouble hearing his wife and that a few years after service it had worsened such that he had a hard time being in an office or hearing with background noise. This eventually led to him seeing a private audiologist in either 1979 or 1980 who reportedly stated that his hearing loss was due to acoustic trauma and service and gave him hearing aids. He indicated that these records were destroyed. As for tinnitus, the Veteran stated during the October 2013 hearing that it started when he came home. He told a March 2013 VA examiner it began in 1968, prior to his separation from service. While there is an absence of complaints or treatment for hearing loss and tinnitus for many years after service separation, the Board has resolved reasonable doubt in his favor and finds that he had continuous symptoms of hearing loss and tinnitus since service separation and meets the requirements of presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Board notes that a March 2013 VA examination determined that the Veteran's hearing loss had not been aggravated by active service. However, the Board does not need to reach the weight assignable to the VA opinion because service connection is granted on a presumptive basis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for the "chronic" disease of hearing loss (38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)) based on a finding of "continuous" symptoms of hearing loss since service rather than on direct service connection. That same examination found that tinnitus was a symptom of hearing loss. In sum, there is evidence of acoustic trauma in-service and continuous symptoms of hearing loss and tinnitus since service; therefore, hearing loss and tinnitus are presumed to have been incurred in service and the appeal is granted. Because the Board is granting service connection on a presumptive basis based on continuous symptoms of hearing loss and tinnitus since service separation, all other service connection theories are rendered moot. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Brendan Evans, 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.