92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-19321 Y92 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 92-02 259 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Lorie Goode Ward, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active military service from October 1969 to October 1971. In a February 1972 rating decision, the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, regional office (hereinafter RO), denied service connection for tinnitus. The appellant was notified of that decision in a letter of February 1972, but did not file an appeal within one year thereafter. This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from an August 1991 rating decision by the RO, which confirmed the February 1972 rating decision, denying the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. A notice of disagreement was received in October 1991. A statement of the case was issued in November 1991. The appellant's substantive appeal was received in March 1992. The appeal was received and docketed at the Board in March 1992. The appellant has been represented throughout his appeal by Disabled American Veterans. His representative furnished an additional statement regarding his claim in May 1992. The case is now ready for appellate consideration. At this time, the Board notes that based on new and material evidence received since the February 1972 rating decision, the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus will be reviewed on a de novo basis. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant contends that he incurred tinnitus in service due to exposure to 8-inch guns and 105-millimeter Howitzers. He maintains that he was given diagnoses of hearing loss and tinnitus aurium in several Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) examinations. Based on this evidence, the appellant asserts that he is entitled to service connection for tinnitus. DECISION OF THE BOARD For the reasons and bases hereinafter set forth, it is the decision of the Board that the evidence regarding the appellant's claim for service connection for tinnitus is in equipoise, and with reasonable doubt resolved in favor of the appellant, service connection is warranted for tinnitus. FINDING OF FACT Tinnitus cannot be disassociated from the appellant's service-connected sensorineural hearing loss. CONCLUSION OF LAW Tinnitus is proximately due to or the result of service-connected sensorineural hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (1992); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) (1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Initially, we note that the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) have been met, in that the appellant's claim is well-grounded and adequately developed. Service connection may be granted for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Tinnitus is not shown to have been reported during the appellant's active military service. Based on a VA examination in December 1971, the appellant was service-connected for sensorineural hearing loss in a rating decision of February 1972. Chronic tinnitus may be causally or etiologically related to sensorineural hearing loss. 2 Cecil, Textbook of Medicine, 2119-2120 (18th ed. 1988). Therefore, the pathology underlying the current tinnitus cannot be clearly disassociated from the appellant's service-connected sensorineural hearing loss. The Board recognizes that tinnitus aurium is a subjective sensation of noises in the ears. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1370 (26th ed. 1981). Due regard has been given to the absence of such complaints or findings during service. However, in light of the August 1991 VA examination which confirms an earlier 1972 reference to tinnitus aurium, the Board finds that the evidence is evenly balanced in this case. When there is an approximate balance of the positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the appellant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). After careful and thorough evaluation of the evidence presented in this case, the Board has determined that the evidence pertaining to the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is in equipoise. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is extended to the appellant, and service connection is granted for tinnitus at this time. ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 * M. SABULSKY J. U. JOHNSON (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) *38 U.S.C. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (1992) permits a Board of Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section proceed with the transaction of business, including the issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a third Member. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C. § 7266 (1992), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.