Citation Nr: 21020761 Decision Date: 04/08/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-15 490 DATE: April 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING 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 service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2020). 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 1967 to May 1969, including in service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran’s awards and decorations for his active service include a Combat Infantryman’s Badge. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In April 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. Service Connection – Bilateral Hearing Loss Disability and Tinnitus The Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus began during service and continued since. Service personnel records indicate that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty was infantryman. He served in Vietnam for 10 months and earned numerous decorations, including the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, Sharpshooter (Rifle M-14), Marksman (M-60), and Marksman (Rifle M-16). Additionally, the Veteran has reported exposure to loud noises from artillery, mortars, M16s, M60s, M50s, grenades, and grenade launchers. As such, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. While the service treatment records (STRs) do not show that the Veteran had tinnitus or bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes during his active service, he has reported that he first experienced decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus during service, and that his symptoms have continued ever since. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced symptoms of decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus, and that those symptoms have continued since service. Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran’s testimony regarding onset and continuity of his hearing loss and tinnitus to be credible. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). The Veteran was afforded a VA audiology evaluation in April 2016. At that time, audiometric testing showed the Veteran to have bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Further, the examiner diagnosed tinnitus. The Board acknowledges that the VA examiner provided a medical opinion against the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus at that time. However, the examiner failed to give adequate consideration to the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his in-service noise exposure and the onset and continuity of his symptoms. Further, the examiner solely relied on the absence of a threshold shift between the Veteran’s entrance and separation examinations. As such, the opinion is not adequate and cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. 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 the Board has found him credible in that regard. In sum, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. The Veteran has competently and credible reported decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus during and since service. The Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes and tinnitus. Further, there is no probative medical evidence against the claim. 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 Roya Bahrami, 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.