Citation Nr: 21011255 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 17-40 966 DATE: March 1, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Veteran has a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes that is attributable to service noise exposure. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s tinnitus resulted from acoustic trauma in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 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 in the United States Air Force from April 1975 to April 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, wherein he was advised of his opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of his appeal for 60 days following the hearing. Thereafter, the Veteran submitted additional relevant evidence. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. Service Connection Service connection is granted for any current disability that is the result of a disease contracted or an injury sustained while on active duty service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss is due to his service. For VA purposes, impaired hearing is considered disabling when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz 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. Although an August 2016 VA examination reflects hearing loss as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 only in the right ear, the May 2019 private examination reflects hearing loss bilaterally. In this regard, the audiogram attached to private audiologist’s letter shows a threshold of greater than 40 decibels at 4000 Hertz bilaterally. The Veteran reported noise exposure in service from multiple sources. The Veteran credibly testified regarding service noise exposure. There are two opinions of record. In the August 2016 VA examination report, the examiner provided a negative opinion, noting the Veteran’s duties in service and finding that such exposure would not lead to hearing loss. In a May 2019 opinion, a private audiologist provided a positive opinion, alsobased on review of the evidence of current hearing loss and the Veteran’s noise exposure in service. Considering the relative probative value of these two opinions, the Board finds that they are in relative equipoise as to the contended nexus between current hearing loss and noise exposure in service. On this basis, the Board grants service connection. 2. Service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to in-service noise exposure. The Board notes that the Veteran has a diagnosis of tinnitus, and therefore the first element of a service connection claim is met. See May 2019 private medical opinion. Tinnitus is, by definition “a noise in the ears, such as ringing, buzzing, roaring, or clicking. It is usually subjective in type.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 1914 (30th ed. 2003). As such, tinnitus is “subjective,” as its existence is generally determined by whether the Veteran claims to experience it. For VA purposes, tinnitus has been specifically found to be a disorder with symptoms that can be identified through lay observation alone. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). If a veteran reports ringing in his ears, then a diagnosis of tinnitus is generally applied without further examination. The Veteran competently and credibly testified at the March 2019 hearing that he experienced tinnitus prior to his discharge in 1979 and has continued since service. In this regard, he is competent under the law to describe what he experienced while in military service. Therefore, the second element of a service connection claim, in-service incident, is satisfied. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); see also Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Veteran, as a layperson, is competent to report on matters observed or within his personal knowledge. Therefore, the Veteran is competent to report as to the date of onset of his tinnitus symptoms. Moreover, tinnitus is the type of disability that may be established on the basis of lay evidence as it is subjective in nature. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Service connection for tinnitus is granted. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Ottley III 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.