Citation Nr: 21013321 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 396 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his current tinnitus symptoms began in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 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 FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1959 to December 1962. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Service Connection – Tinnitus 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, 1131; 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, service connection can also be established through application of a statutory presumption for chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system, such as sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus, when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a chronic disease is not manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation of service, then, generally, a showing of “continuity of symptoms” after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Furthermore, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Veteran seeks service connection for tinnitus. Tinnitus is a type of disorder associated with symptoms that are uniquely capable of lay observation. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The primary role of the Board in adjudicating the tinnitus claim is to assess the credibility of the Veteran’s statements. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the Veteran contends that he has tinnitus as a result of noise exposure during active service. At a January 2021 Board hearing, he testified that his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a radio intercept analyst exposed him to loud radio communications, using older headphones without noise suppression protection, with the volume up very loud to be able to hear what he needed to translate. He also testified that most of his work dealt with the North Korean Air Force, which required him to work long shifts aboard military aircraft to intercept the communications, which also exposed him to loud aircraft noise. Further, he testified that his tinnitus symptoms began during these flights. The Board finds the Veteran’s statements as to the onset of his tinnitus credible. His statements alone are sufficient to establish the criteria for service connection for tinnitus. While there is no objective evidence of tinnitus in service, the Veteran asserts that he developed tinnitus in service and has had tinnitus since then. As noted above, he is competent to give evidence about observable symptoms such as tinnitus and noise exposure. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Thus, the Board concedes the Veteran’s noise exposure during his active duty, and, as such, the in-service event element of his claim for service connection for tinnitus is met. Resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that his tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to his in-service noise exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Therefore, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND Service Connection – Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is due to noise exposure during his active service. As discussed above, the Board has conceded his noise exposure during his active duty. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in relation to his claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, despite the indication that his bilateral hearing loss could be related to his service. There is no medical opinion of record addressing this etiology issue. VA’s duty to assist includes, when necessary, conducting a thorough and comprehensive medical examination. McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Thus, a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine whether his hearing loss is service related. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate examiner to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran’s electronic claims file must be accessible for review by the examiner in conjunction with this examination, and the examiner should acknowledge such review in the examination report. A complete history from the Veteran should be obtained and recorded. All testing deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed, and the results should be reported in detail. Following the review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is then requested to respond to the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e. 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss onset during service or is otherwise related to service? Why or why not? b) Is the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss at least as likely as not proximately due to his now service-connected tinnitus? c) Is the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss at least as likely as not aggravated, i.e., worsened beyond its natural progression, by his now service-connected tinnitus? The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A clear rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). His failure to report for any VA medical examination, if requested, may impact the determination made. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The Veteran is also advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Benson, 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.