Citation Nr: 21021234 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 18-17 591 DATE: April 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from March 1961 to September 1961 and October 1961 to August 1962. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board video conference hearing at the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in February 2020. The case was remanded by the Board to the AOJ for additional development in May 2020. While the Board regrets the additional delay, another remand is warranted for the reason below. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran has undergone VA examinations in October 2015 and February 2018, which found that the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus was not related to service based on the fact that the Veteran did not have hearing loss and tinnitus until 35 years after service. The Board remanded the case so that a medical opinion could consider the Veteran’s lay testimony at his Board hearing that he actually first noticed hearing loss and tinnitus in service. Specifically, the Veteran testified that he first noticed his hearing loss and tinnitus during an obstacle course when he was crawling and a “bunker went off” and it bounced him off about two feet; for a couple of days he could not hear and the ringing started. See February 2020 Board hearing transcript, p. 3. He also recalled hearing loss from the rifle range and machine guns firing near his ear. Id. He further stated that he did not seek treatment after service because he did not know he could get any VA benefits and did not worry about it. Id. at 6. He only recently found out that he could get hearing aids from VA when his hearing became worse. Id at 6, 8. Finally, he noted that after service he worked in an office environment and did not have much noise exposure. Id. at 7. The most recent medical opinion in October 2020 found that there was no documented evidence in the service treatment records of hearing loss or tinnitus, and no evidence of chronicity or continuity of care regarding hearing loss and tinnitus for 35 years after service. The non-documentation of chronicity of care and/or treatment after the Veteran’s exposure to acoustic trauma in service is an insufficient rationale to support a negative opinion in light of the Veteran’s lay reports of a continuity of symptomatology since service. The Veteran is competent to state that he has experienced hearing loss and tinnitus since service. His statements and testimony should at least be considered in providing any medical opinion regarding the onset of his hearing loss and tinnitus. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s conceded exposure to acoustic trauma in service. In making this assessment please consider the following: (a.) The Veteran testified that he first noticed his hearing loss and tinnitus during an obstacle course when he was crawling and a “bunker went off” and it bounced him off about two feet; for a couple of days he could not hear and the ringing started. (b.) He also recalled hearing loss from the rifle range and machine guns firing near his ear. (c.) He further stated that he did not seek treatment after service because he did not know he could get any VA benefits and did not worry about it; and only recently found out that he could get hearing aids from VA when his hearing became worse. (d.) He noted that after service he worked in an office environment and did not have much noise exposure. The medical opinion must consider the Veteran’s competent testimony regarding the onset of hearing loss and tinnitus in service. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sarah B. Richmond, 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.