Citation Nr: 21014475 Decision Date: 03/12/21 Archive Date: 03/12/21 DOCKET NO. 20-02 367 DATE: March 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus is etiologically related to noise exposure during active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from October 1966 to October 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in June 2018 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO or AOJ). In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a Video Conference Board Hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The transcript is of record. Entitlement to Service Connection for Tinnitus The Veteran claims tinnitus is due to his service. During his February 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that his tinnitus is due to diesel engine noise exposure as a motor transport operator. The record establishes a current disability; tinnitus was diagnosed at the June 2018 VA examination and the Veteran has provided competent testimony describing the ringing in his ears. See February 2021 hearing transcript. An in-service injury is also present. The June 2018 VA examiner noted the Veteran’s service as a motor transport operator had a moderate probability of hazardous military noise exposure. The Veteran testified the onset of tinnitus was during service, which he is again competent to report. The evidence, therefore, establishes the presence of noise exposure during service and an in-service injury is demonstrated. The Board finds that the evidence of record is at least in equipoise regarding a link between the Veteran’s current tinnitus and his active service. Consideration has been given to the report of June 2018 VA examination that included an opinion against the claim - noting that the Veteran did not experience a significant shift in hearing thresholds during service. However, the examiner did not adequately consider the Veteran’s statements that his tinnitus had its onset during military service. See February 2021 hearing transcript. The Veteran’s lay statements describing constant tinnitus since service are credible and competent evidence weighing in favor of the claim. All the elements necessary for establishing service connection are met and the claim is granted. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to Service Connection for a Bilateral Foot Disability is Remanded. The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for a bilateral foot disability. Specifically, during his February 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that he experienced pain and swelling of the feet shortly after entering service, that the problem never fully resolved, and it had progressively worsened over time. The Veteran said he avoided going to sick call out of concern of being labeled a malinger, but that he had a sergeant that allowed him travel by truck whenever it was possible. X-rays of the Veteran’s left and right feet showed right and borderline mild left pes planus, metatarsus adductus, bilateral hammer and/or mallet toes, and mild osteoarthritis in both feet. See April 2018 VA treatment record. The record also includes a lay statement from the Veteran’s spouse, who wrote in November 2017, that the Veteran broke both arches in his feet during drill exercises, that he cannot walk normal, and that this has continued since service. Similar statements were provided by the Veteran’s fellow soldiers, B.W. and B.T. In a November 2017 statement, B.W., attested to observing the swelling in the Veteran’s feet that started during the second week of basic training, that the Veteran would have trouble getting into his boots, and the Veteran was in severe pain during basic training. In a May 2018 statement, B.T. attested to the Veteran being transported in-service when his feet were swollen. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to clarify all diagnoses related to his bilateral foot disability, and the etiology of such disabilities. As such, the Board finds that a remand is necessary. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any bilateral foot disability. The electronic claims files, to include a copy of this remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All necessary testing should be accomplished, as appropriate. The examiner is asked to do the following: a.) Identify/diagnose any bilateral foot disability that presently exists or has existed during the appeal period. If the examiner disagrees with a diagnosis already established in the medical records, he/she should so state and explain why. Specifically, the examiner should state whether the Veteran has bilateral pes planus, metatarsus adductus, bilateral hammer and/or mallet toes, and osteoarthritis in both feet. b.) For all diagnosed bilateral foot disabilities, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether such disability is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) had onset in service or is/are otherwise etiologically related to service, to include the aforementioned in-service complaints. c.) If arthritis is diagnosed, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that arthritis manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. The examiner should consider and discuss the Veteran’s statements, the statements of B.W. and B.T., and the statement of W.J.W., that the Veteran broke the arches in his feet in-service, and that he has had continuous foot pain since service, as well as the contention that the Veteran was allowed to be transported during service when his feet were swollen. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and he/she must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith, 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.