Citation Nr: 21008301 Decision Date: 02/16/21 Archive Date: 02/16/21 DOCKET NO. 17-23 713 DATE: February 16, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. After resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral hearing loss disability was incurred in service and continued from that time. 2. After resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his tinnitus was incurred during service and continued from that time. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2020). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1974 to September 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In June 2019, the Board previously denied both issues and the Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In September 2020, CAVC granted a joint motion for remand for further review of the evidence of record. Service Connection Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated in service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. Hearing loss will be 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; or the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or speech recognition scores utilizing recorded Maryland CNC word lists are less than 94 percent. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385; see also Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 178-80 (2007). The Veteran has a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See, e.g., March 2015 VA treatment records. He reported that he began to experience hearing loss in service and since that time. See August 2015 correspondence. It is well established that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty was a field artillery operator. See DD 214. As a result, noise exposure in service is conceded. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2015. Based upon frequency-specific audiological testing during the Veteran’s service, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s disability was related to service due to a lack of objective evidence indicating permanent, noise-induced hearing loss over time. See August 2015 VA examination. This opinion is inadequate because it does not consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements of hearing loss during service and thereafter. Rather, it dismisses the Veteran’s statements for lack of objective evidence. Therefore, it is given no probative weight. After resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability is due to service. Indeed, the Veteran has competently stated that his hearing loss first manifested in service and continued since ultimately reaching the level of a hearing loss disability. As such, service connection is granted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran has competently reported his tinnitus began in service and continued from that time. See August 2015 VA examination. The August 2015 VA examiner opined it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to service, but improperly relied on the absence of a disability and noise injury in service treatment records. As noted above, noise exposure has been conceded. As a result, the opinion is given little probative weight. After resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that his tinnitus was incurred in service and continued from that time. Therefore, service connection is granted. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Marcus K. Jones, Associate 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.