Citation Nr: 1306895 Decision Date: 02/28/13 Archive Date: 03/01/13 DOCKET NO. 12-31 510 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Chapman, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from May 1966 to March 1969. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2011 rating decision by the St. Louis, Missouri Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served in combat. 2. It is reasonably shown that the Veteran has tinnitus, the onset of which is related to combat noise trauma. CONCLUSION OF LAW Service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1154(b), 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) The VCAA, in part, describes VA's duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). The VCAA applies to the instant claim. However, inasmuch as the benefit sought is being granted, there is no reason to belabor the impact of the VCAA on the matter; any notice defect or duty to assist failure is harmless. Legal Criteria, Factual background, and Analysis Initially, the Board notes that all of the evidence in the Veteran's claims file and in Virtual VA (VA's electronic data storage system), with an emphasis on the evidence relevant to this appeal, has been reviewed. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting its decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence of record. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378-1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (VA must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). Hence, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence as appropriate, and the Board's analysis will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as to the claims. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Generally, to substantiate a claim of service connection requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability, (2) medical evidence, or in certain circumstances lay testimony, of in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. For a Veteran who engaged in combat with the enemy in active service, the Secretary of VA shall accept as sufficient proof of service connection of any disease or injury alleged to have been incurred in or aggravated by such service satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or disease, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d). When there is an approximate balance of 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 claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When all of the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). The Veteran's DD Form 214 reflects his military occupational specialty (MOS) was rifleman, and that he was awarded a Purple Heart Medal. His service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis related to tinnitus. On May 2011 VA audiological evaluation, the Veteran reported intermittent tinnitus, and that he is unsure whether tinnitus occurs in one ear or both. He described the tinnitus as "humming" and reported it occurs one time every few days and lasts for 5-10 minutes. He related that during service, he was exposed to noise trauma from various weapons, mortars, and bombs. He also reported a history of civilian occupational noise exposure, to include exposure to construction equipment both before and after military service, and recreational noise exposure. The examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus would be considered to be normally occurring as it is mild, infrequent, and of short duration; he concluded that the Veteran's tinnitus was not caused by or a result of military service. In an October 2012 addendum to the May 2011 VA examination report, the examiner stated that although hearing loss and tinnitus are commonly present together, they are not necessarily mutually occurring and have varying causes. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely than not associated with his service-connected hearing loss. The Veteran claims that he has experienced ringing in his ears since service. He has indicated that he did not seek service connection for tinnitus previously because he was taught to deal with his problems on his own. The record establishes that the Veteran engaged in combat (as evidenced by his receipt of the Purple Heart Medal) and is entitled to the relaxed evidentiary standards afforded by 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b). Furthermore, tinnitus is a disability eminently capable of lay observation (by the person who experiences it) (see Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002)), and generally not capable of objective verification. As the Veteran reports tinnitus and there is no reason to dispute his accounts, it is not in dispute that he has such disability. What the Board is presented with, in essence, is a combat Veteran's account that his tinnitus had its onset from combat noise trauma in service. As the Board has no reason to question the veracity of his accounts and affording his claim the benefit of consideration of his claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b), the Board finds that the requirements for establishing service connection are met, and that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. ____________________________________________ GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs