Citation Nr: 1303763 Decision Date: 02/04/13 Archive Date: 02/08/13 DOCKET NO. 10-42 215 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: California Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Andrea Johnson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from November 1984 to February 1991. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a November 2009 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. The Board must note that in reviewing this case the Board has not only reviewed the Veteran's physical claims file, but also his file on the "Virtual VA" system to insure a total review of the evidence. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence establishes that the Veteran's tinnitus began during, or was otherwise caused by, his military service, to include any noise exposure therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION In seeking VA disability compensation, a Veteran generally seeks to establish that a current disability results from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131. "Service connection" basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The Veteran is currently seeking service connection for tinnitus. He served on active military duty from November 1984 through February 1991 in the United States Air Force. During service, the Veteran's MOS was aircraft mechanic. He is currently diagnosed with tinnitus. The Board acknowledges that as an aircraft mechanic the Veteran was exposed to loud noise in service, such as the noise from jet engines. His statements on this matter are found to be credible and are supported by his DD-214, showing service in tactical aircraft maintenance. Furthermore his MOS is listed as highly probable for exposure to hazardous noise on the Duty MOS Noise Exposure Listing. See Fast Letter 10-35 (Sept 2010). Therefore it is clear from the record that the Veteran had military noise exposure. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). However, neither exposure to noise in the military, nor a currently diagnosed disability, alone are grounds for service connection in all cases. Rather, the military noise exposure must cause the tinnitus. This connection can be established by either medical opinion of record, or by credible evidence that establishes continuity of symptomatology. The Board will now turn to a discussion of the etiology of the Veteran's tinnitus. The Board will first consider whether service connection is warranted based on continuity of symptomatology. Service treatment records were reviewed, but fail to describe any complaints of ringing ears while the Veteran was in service. Since the Veteran was in an occupation which involved high noise exposure, he was provided with an audiometric evaluation on a nearly annual basis. The reports of these hearing examinations do not include any notation that the Veteran was experiencing ringing in his ears. Furthermore, at his separation physical in December 1990 the Veteran indicated that he did not have any hearing loss, or any other ear, nose, or throat troubles. As such, the record does not reveal that the Veteran received any medical treatment for ringing or buzzing in his ears during service. However, lack of medical treatment in service alone does not determine whether the Veteran's symptoms have continued since service. The Veteran may also establish continuity of symptomatology by his own lay testimony. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that lay evidence is competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when 1) a lay person is competent to identify the medical condition; 2) the lay person is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis; or 3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, lay evidence may suffice to establish the manifestations of a chronic condition during service, or within a presumptive period; and, when a condition is not chronic and there is no medical evidence of a causal nexus, lay testimony or medical evidence may establish continuity of symptomatology. See Id.; Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Of note, the Court has specifically held that tinnitus is a type of disorder associated with symptoms capable of lay observation. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). In this case, the record includes the Veteran's description of intermittent ringing in his left ear. The Veteran describes this ringing occurs once or twice a week, and lasts around one to two minutes each time. In his July 2009 claim for benefits the Veteran asserted that the symptoms of his tinnitus began in January 1985, while he was still in active military service. Throughout the evidence of record the Veteran has consistently related his current tinnitus to his exposure to acoustic trauma while in service, and the record does not contain any suggestion of an alternative, conflicting date of symptom onset. As the Veteran's testimony has been consistent, the Board finds no reason to doubt the veracity or credibility of his testimony. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran's statements are credible to establish that his symptoms of tinnitus began while he was still in active duty military service and have continued to the present day. In July 2009 the Veteran initially sought treatment for his tinnitus from his private physician. This physician personally interviewed the Veteran, and then conducted an audiologic evaluation. The physician found the Veteran had cochlear damage, sensorineural hearing loss, and tinnitus, all of which she explained were caused by noise exposure. Therefore the physician opined that the Veteran's current tinnitus was most likely due to his exposure to acoustic trauma while serving in the military. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's tinnitus was also evaluated by a VA examiner in November 2009 who found the Veteran's tinnitus was not caused by, or a result of, acoustic trauma while in the military. The examiner reasoned that the description of tinnitus provided by the Veteran, an intermittent ringing in his left ear which reoccurs once or twice a week, was more consistent with "normally occurring tinnitus in the general population." As such, the examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was not a result of his military service. Although the opinion of the VA examiner found that the Veteran's current tinnitus is not connected to his military service, other evidence in the record suggests the Veteran's current disability is related to his military service, as was discussed above. The Veteran's consistent lay testimony relating his symptoms to his military service and the medical opinion of his private physician both tend to establish the Veteran's current tinnitus is the result of his military service. As such, the Board concludes that the evidence for and against the Veteran's claim for service connection is at the very least in relative equipoise, and reasonable doubt will therefore be resolved in his favor. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is granted. ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. ____________________________________________ JOHN J. CROWLEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs