Citation Nr: 21029360 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 20-16 668 DATE: May 13, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service. 2. The Veteran's tinnitus had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1966 to September 1969. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2021. Although the Veteran did not file a notice of disagreement within one year of the February 2015 rating decision, the July 2015 statement in support of claim constitutes new and material evidence received within one year of the rating decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b); Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 251-52 (2010). Accordingly, the Board finds that the appeal for service connection for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss have been pending since the February 2015 rating decision. Service Connection 1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, which he contends began in service and has been recurrent since that time. All three elements of service connection are established by the competent and credible lay and medical evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, reports ongoing tinnitus and suffered acoustic trauma when exposed to extreme loud noise in service while performing his duties as an artillery officer. See Statement in Support of Claim, July 2014; see also VA Examination, January 2015. Thus, the first two criteria have been met. Further, the competent and credible evidence of record shows that his current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus began during service and have been recurrent since that time. The Veteran reported that he first noticed hearing loss and tinnitus during service and that it has gotten worse over the years. See Hearing Testimony, April 2021. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his hearing loss and tinnitus symptoms and the Board finds his testimony credible. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, a July 2015 private examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is at least as likely as not the result of in-service acoustic trauma. The Board notes that the January 2015 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss was not related to service; however, there is a March 2016 private medical opinion linking the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus to in-service noise exposure. In addition, the credible lay evidence shows that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus had their onset in service, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994). In light of the foregoing, service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus is warranted. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Leigh, Attorney Advisor 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.