Citation Nr: 21009429 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 19-35 379 DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Evidence supports the finding that the Veteran experienced diminished hearing acuity shortly after separation from service, which has deteriorated over the years to the level of bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus began during service and he has continuously experienced it ever since. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from July 1963 to July 1967. His military specialty was single engine airplane mechanic. 1. Hearing loss The Veteran is seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss, which he believes, as result of military noise exposure during service. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present 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 or aggravated during service (nexus). Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be established with certain chronic diseases based upon a legal presumption by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). In addition, service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), where a symptom of a chronic disease is noted in service without diagnosis in service or within one year from service, but chronicity is established by continuity of symptomatology after service. This is an alternative way to establish service connection for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service personnel records confirm that the Veteran’s military specialty was single engine airplane mechanic. The Veteran also reported that he served in an artillery unit. As such, military noise exposure is conceded. U.S.C. § 1154(a). However, military noise exposure alone is not considered to be a disability, rather, it must be shown that the military noise exposure caused a hearing loss disability for VA purposes. For VA purposes, hearing loss will be considered to be a disability when (1) the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or (2) the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or (3) when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R.§3.385. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2018, which showed the following results: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Maryland CNC R. Ear 20 30 60 60 55 84% L. Ear 40 55 70 75 75 68% As such, presence of hearing loss in both ears for VA purposes was confirmed. The Veteran credibly testified at his Board hearing in November 2020 that he had not ever been given a hearing test at separation. He also added that he took a hearing test several years after service as part of an annual physical which showed hearing loss. He also recalled people telling him he was yelling at them in the years after service, because he had trouble regulating his volume. The Court has specifically held that a veteran was competent to describe the observable, non-medical symptoms of his hearing disability, including the onset of his hearing loss. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The Board finds the Veteran is competent to report diminished hearing acuity that was noticeable in the immediate aftermath of service, and his testimony is credible as he gave a specific example of how he noticed his hearing problems immediately after service. His testimony suggested that the hearing loss began shortly after separation from service, and had deteriorated over the years. Accordingly, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted based on a finding of continuity of symptomatology since service. 2. Tinnitus VA examination in December 2018 diagnosed the Veteran with tinnitus. The Veteran credibly testified at his Board hearing in November 2020 that he had experienced ringing in his ears during service and ever since. The Court has specifically held that tinnitus is a type of disorder associated with symptoms capable of lay observation. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Here, the Veteran has credibly reported the onset of tinnitus during service, which he has continuously noticed ever since. Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is granted. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Q. Wang, 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.