Citation Nr: 21028934 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-39 172 DATE: May 12, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Service connection for acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and anxiety, is remanded. Service connection for right ear hearing loss disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT There is competent and credible evidence showing the Veteran's tinnitus began during service with continuity of symptomatology since service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1980 to May 1984. In Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disorder that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and other information of record. In light of Clemons, the issue has been recharacterized to encompass all psychiatric diagnoses. A February 2021 letter informed the Veteran that the October 2020 Board hearing transcript was unable to be transcribed due to audio malfunction. The Veteran was provided the opportunity to appear for another Board hearing or have the Board make a decision on the record. The Veteran elected the Board consider his claim based on the evidence of record. See March 2021 correspondence. Service connection for tinnitus Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, to include tinnitus, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Board finds competent and credible evidence showing the Veteran's tinnitus manifested during service with continuity of symptomatology since service. Service treatment records (STR) show complaints of tinnitus during service. See April 1981 and May 1983 STR. The Veteran contends his ears started ringing during service and continued since separation from service. See April 2011 statement and August 2013 statement. The Court has held that tinnitus is a type of disorder associated with symptoms capable of lay observation. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). As such, the primary role of the Board in adjudicating a tinnitus claim is to assess the credibility of the Veteran's statements. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, the Board finds no reason to doubt the Veteran's credibility. As the preponderance of the evidence shows the Veteran's tinnitus manifested during service with continuity of symptomatology since service, service connection for tinnitus is granted. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for acquired psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, MDD, and anxiety The Veteran contends his psychiatric disability is related to Coast Guard duties of search and rescue and drug patrol, to include being in the water during storms, seeing decomposed remains, interactions with drug smugglers and pirates, and being picked on by fellow servicemembers. See January 2007 statement, January 2012 statement, September 2012 statement, and December 2012 statement. It does not appear the RO has performed any development to assist the Veteran in verifying his reported stressors, to include obtaining personnel records. This evidence is necessary to determine whether the Veteran has a verifiable in-service stressor or whether the Veteran's descriptions of in-service stressors are consistent with the circumstances of his service. The Board requests further development. 2. Service connection for right ear hearing loss disability The Veteran contends his right ear hearing loss began during service and is related to a right eardrum rupture during service. See April 2011 statement and August 2013 statement. STR visits show numerous visits for right ear symptoms. A March 2012 VA medical opinion stated the Veteran's right ear hearing loss disability was less likely as not caused by or related to service because the Veteran entered and exited the military with normal hearing. An August 2012 VA addendum opinion, which noted the claims file was not available for review, opined the Veteran's hearing loss was less likely as not related to noise exposure during service because according to the previous examiner's review of the claims file, there was no significant decrease in hearing from entrance to separation. These opinions did not discuss the Veteran's contention that his right ear hearing loss was related to right eardrum rupture during service. These opinions did not discuss an April 1981 audiogram showing right ear hearing loss. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993) (the threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and that higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss). A medical opinion addressing this evidence is requested. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's complete service personnel records. 2. Conduct the appropriate development to verify the Veteran's reported stressors during his Coast Guard duties of search and rescue and drug patrol, to include being in the water during storms, seeing decomposed remains, interactions with drug smugglers and pirates, and being picked on by fellow servicemembers. See January 2007 statement, January 2012 statement, September 2012 statement, and December 2012 statements. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. 3. Schedule a psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disabilities. (a.) Identify any psychiatric disabilities found during the appeal period. (b.) If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, explain how the diagnostic criteria are met and opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to a verified in-service stressor. (c.) If any other psychiatric disabilities are diagnosed, opine whether each diagnosed disability at least as likely as not manifested during service or is related to service. 4. Obtain a medical opinion from an appropriate clinician addressing the Veteran's right ear hearing loss disability. An in-person examination is not required unless deemed necessary by the clinician. The clinician should answer: (a.) Whether the Veteran's right ear hearing loss disability at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) manifested during service or within a year of separation from service? (b.) Whether the Veteran's right ear hearing loss disability at least as likely as not is related to service? The clinician should discuss: (i) STRs showing treatment for persistent otitis media and right ear bleeding and (ii) the April 1981 audiogram showing right ear hearing loss. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993) (the threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and that higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss). The clinician should consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset and progression of his hearing loss. See April 2011 statement and August 2013 statement. By this remand, the Board makes no determination, express or implied, concerning the credibility of any lay statements on file. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Winkler, 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.