Citation Nr: 21023158 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 18-50 472 DATE: April 20, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus are etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained during 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 FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from February 1966 to February 1968, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This case comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Transcripts of that hearing has been associated with the record. Service Connection – Bilateral Hearing Loss Disability and Tinnitus The Veteran asserts that his current hearing loss and tinnitus are related to active duty. Specifically, he contends that he first noticed hearing loss during service following specific incidents of acoustic trauma, and he first noticed tinnitus when he returned home from active duty in 1968. The Veteran’s military personnel records demonstrate that the Veteran was exposed to multiple sources of noise throughout service. His DD Form 214 indicates that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was an aircraft mechanic. He attended U.S. Army Aviation School for five months. The Veteran was assigned to the 225th Aviation Company for approximately nine months, during which he was exposed to dual turboprop engine noise. The Veteran also reported extended noise exposure to heavy weaponry. The Board finds that the hazardous noise exposure is consistent with the facts and circumstances of the Veteran’s service. As such, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. 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. Further, the Veteran’s spouse, who has known the Veteran since 1969, also testified that the Veteran exhibited symptoms of hearing loss and tinnitus when they first met. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds the Veteran’s testimony regarding the 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 audiological evaluation in February 2015. At that time, examiner diagnosed tinnitus and audiometric testing results revealed bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. However, the February 2015 VA examiner provided a medical opinion against the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus. 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. The Board notes that the Veteran’s separation examination indicates that the Veteran’s thresholds were zero in all frequencies. The Veteran denies that he was provided audiological testing at separation, noting that he was discharged in the Republic of Vietnam and that the facility there did not have audiometric testing equipment. The Veteran’s testimony is consistent with his separation examination report, which notes that the examination took place in the Republic of Vietnam. 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 of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus 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); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2020); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (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.