Citation Nr: 21015561 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 19-22 504 DATE: March 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for recurrent tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus are etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2019). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from October 1961 to August 1962. The Veteran had additional service in the Army National Guard. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2019 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board, most recently in August 2020, at which time the issues currently on appeal were remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Service Connection – Bilateral Hearing Loss Disability and Tinnitus The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus are due to active service. During the course of his service, the Veteran had several different military occupational specialties, to include that of combat engineer. Further the Veteran has reported exposure to large and small arms fire, to include heavy artillery. The Veteran has also reported that hearing protection was not available during his training and field use of large and small arms weaponry. The Board finds that the Veteran’s report of hazardous noise is consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. As such, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma while in active service. Service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran was afforded an enlistment examination in January 1960. At that time, the Veteran denied problems with hearing in his Report of Medical History; however, audiometric testing was not performed at that time. In August 1960, the Veteran was afforded a separation examination following an approximately six month period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA). At that time, audiometric testing was performed, and the Veteran was not shown to have hearing loss for VA purposes in either ear. The Veteran was afforded additional entry and separation examinations for his period of active service in September 1961 and May 1962, respectively. Audiometric testing was not conducted at either examination; however, the Veteran specifically noted ear, nose, and throat trouble at the time of his May 1962 separation examination. That notation was not commented upon by the clinician performing the examination. Further, as not audiometric testing was conducted at the time of his May 1962 separation examination, the Veteran’s hearing acuity at the time of his separation from active service cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. In conjunction with his additional service in the Army National Guard, the Veteran was afforded a period examination in February 1967. At that time, audiometric testing revealed that the Veteran’s hearing acuity had sustained a significant shift at 4000 hertz from the time of his August 1960 separation examination audiometric testing. In October 1978, the Veteran was afforded another periodic examination, at which time audiometric testing showed that the Veteran’s hearing acuity had continued to decline in both ears, and he was even noted to have mild left ear hearing loss at that time. Further, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus while he was in active service, and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuity of decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus. Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that regard. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). In January 2019, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiology evaluation. At that time, the Veteran was diagnosed with tinnitus, and audiometric testing showed the Veteran to have bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Board notes that multiple VA medical opinions have been obtained in connection with this appeal. However, a review of those medical opinions shows that they are inadequate for adjudication purposes as the examiners failed to give adequate consideration to the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinions are not adequate, they cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection and will not be discussed further in this decision. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, as noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus, and he has been found credible in that regard. In sum, the Board has conceded that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported that he first experienced decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus during service, and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Veteran has current diagnoses of tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The VA medical opinions of record against the claims are inadequate and so, are of no probative value. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claims is at least in equipoise. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ivan Franklin 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.