Citation Nr: 21030507 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 18-29 642 DATE: May 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran developed chronic tinnitus during active 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(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1987 to November 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a October 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). To establish service connection, a showing of competent medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence must confirm (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 116667 (Fed. Cir 2004). A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002) (a layperson is competent to observe tinnitus). Here, the Veteran reported that he first experienced buzzing in his ears while he was in service working as a power generator mechanic who worked extensively on Bradleys and M1Abrahams. See 10/9/2020 Hearing Transcript. Because the Veteran is competent to report on the onset and continuation of the buzzing in his ears, his report is afforded significant probative weight. Although the Veteran was afforded two VA examinations regarding his claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus, neither examination opinion was adequate for VA purposes because they did not consider the Veteran's lay statements. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008). Thus, neither opinion is afforded any probative weight. Because the Veteran's statement establishing a current disability which began in service and has continued since is afforded significant probative weight, and the negative opinions provided by VA examiners are afforded none, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for tinnitus. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran filed a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD in October 2000 and that claim was denied in a January 2002 rating decision. The Veteran did not appeal the 2002 rating decision and it became final. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. In a June 2017 rating decision, the RO implicitly determined that new and material evidence was received for the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition (claimed as PTSD) but continued denial of the claim. The Board now finds that new and material evidence has been associated with the record thus warranting a reopening of the claim. In furtherance of that claim, there was an October 2020 Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), and the transcript is of record. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Here, there is one VA examination of record regarding the Veteran's claim. See 5/18/2018 C&P Examination. While the resultant opinion notes that the Veteran was not forthcoming, which in turn prohibited a diagnosis on that day, the examiner did not consider the stressors that the Veteran previously reported and which were reflected in the record or any other mental health condition that may have been acquired in, or exacerbated by, service. As such, a new VA Examination is warranted. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his acquired psychiatric condition(s). The entire claims file should be made available to and be reviewed by the clinician in conjunction with this request. After examining the Veteran and considering his reported history, the clinician should address the following: (a.) Please identify any current psychological condition by diagnosis. (b.) For any disorder identified, please state whether it is a least as likely as not that the disorder had its onset in or is otherwise related to service. (c.) If the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD, please identify the particular stressor(s) upon which PTSD is based. Please specifically state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's claimed PTSD is causally related to his conceded in-service stressor(s). (d.) If a psychological condition other than PTSD is diagnosed, please provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's diagnosed psychological condition is related to his conceded in-service stressor(s). (e.) Please comment, to the best of your ability, whether the prodromal period for any currently diagnosed psychotic disorder as likely as not had its onset during the Veteran's period of active service or within one year following discharge. A complete rationale for the examiner's opinions should be provided, citing to specific evidence of record, as necessary. Citation to relevant peer reviewed medical literature reviewed in rendering the opinion would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and whether there is additional evidence that would permit the opinion to be provided. If the inability to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation is due to a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), the AOJ should develop the claim to the extent it is necessary to cure any such deficiency. If the inability to provide an opinion is due to the examiner's lack of requisite knowledge or training, then the AOJ should obtain an opinion from a medical professional who has the knowledge and training needed to render such an opinion. S. C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sloley, 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.