Citation Nr: 1318025 Decision Date: 06/03/13 Archive Date: 06/11/13 DOCKET NO. 12-19 618 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Saira Spicknall, Counsel INTRODUCTION Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). The Veteran served on active duty from June 1955 to June 1959. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2010 rating decision of the St. Louis, Missouri, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously remanded by the Board in November 2012 and March 2013 for additional development. A review of the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system reflects that additional records have been added to the present appeal. These records include VA medical records. A supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) was issued in April 2013, which addressed this additional evidence. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The probative evidence of record reflects that the Veteran's currently diagnosed hearing loss did not originate in service or for many years thereafter and is not related to any incident during active service. 2. The probative evidence of record reflects that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of tinnitus and the reported symptoms of tinnitus noted in the record did not originate in service or for many years thereafter and are not related to any incident during active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for the establishment of service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 1112, 1113, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2012). 2. The criteria for the establishment of service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) The VCAA, codified, in part, at 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103, was signed into law on November 9, 2000. Implementing regulations were created, codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2012). VCAA notice consistent with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) must: (1) inform the claimant about the information and evidence not of record that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) inform the claimant about the information and evidence that VA will seek to provide; and (3) inform the claimant about the information and evidence that the claimant is expected to provide. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1) (2012). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held in Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004) that to the extent possible the VCAA notice, as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002), must be provided to a claimant before an initial unfavorable decision on a claim for VA benefits. Pelegrini, 18 Vet. App. at 119-20; see also Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Prior to the initial adjudication of the Veteran's claims for service connection in the October 2010 rating decision, he was provided notice of the VCAA in June 2010. The VCAA letter indicated the types of information and evidence necessary to substantiate the claim, and the division of responsibility between the Veteran and VA for obtaining that evidence, including the information needed to obtain lay evidence and both private and VA medical treatment records. The Veteran also received notice in June 2010, pertaining to the downstream disability rating and effective date elements of his claims, and was furnished a statement of the case (SOC) in June 2012 with subsequent re-adjudication in January 2013 and April 2013 SSOCs. Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006); see also Mayfield and Pelegrini, both supra. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable resolution of the issues on appeal has been identified and obtained, to the extent possible. The evidence of record includes service treatment records, VA outpatient treatment reports, an adequate VA examination and opinion and statements from the Veteran and his representative. This case was previously remanded by the Board in March 2013 to provide the Veteran with an adequate VA examination for his hearing loss and tinnitus. As the VA examiner, in the March 2013 VA examination, performed all the tests necessary to evaluate the Veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus, rendered adequate opinions and complied with the Board's remand instructions, the Board is satisfied that the development requested by its March 2013 remand has now been satisfactorily completed and substantially complied with respect to these issues. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (remand not required under Stegall, 11 Vet. App. 268 where Board's remand instructions were substantially complied with). The Board notes that the March 2013 VA examination report reflects that the examiner reviewed the Veteran's past medical history, documented his current medical condition, and rendered appropriate diagnoses and opinions consistent with the remainder of the evidence of record, and with supporting rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet App 295 (2008). Consequently, the Board concludes that the medical examination and opinion are adequate for adjudication purposes. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). The Veteran has not indicated that he has any further evidence to submit to VA, or which VA needs to obtain. There is no indication that there exists any additional evidence that has a bearing on this case that has not been obtained. The Veteran and his representative have been accorded ample opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of his appeal. All pertinent due process requirements have been met. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (2012). Pertinent Laws and Regulations Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2012). In addition, service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In order to establish service connection for a claimed disorder on a direct basis, there must be: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of the in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Service connection will also be presumed for certain chronic diseases, including sensorineural hearing loss, if manifested to a compensable degree within one year after discharge from service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1112; 38 C.F.R §§ 3.307, 3.309. This presumption, however, is rebuttable by probative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1113. Impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz, in ISO units, is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2012). The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels; higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993). Due to the subjective nature of [tinnitus], the veteran, as a layperson is competent to testify as to his symptoms. See Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 403 (1995). The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all of the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2012). See Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding a material issue, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2012). See Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001). If the Board determines that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, then it has necessarily found that the evidence is not in approximate balance, and the benefit of the doubt rule will not be applicable. Ortiz, 274 F.3d at 1365. With regard to VA examinations, the Board notes that the most recent examination is not necessarily and always controlling; rather, consideration is given not only to the evidence as a whole but to both the recency and adequacy of examinations. See Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 35 (1999). Analysis In statements presented throughout the duration of the appeal, the Veteran has maintained that he has current bilateral hearing loss which is related to acoustic trauma sustained during his active service. In his May 2010 claim, the Veteran reported having tinnitus ever since his exposure to acoustic trauma in service. The Veteran's DD form 214 reflects that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was that of an electronic technician, thereby supporting his statements of exposure to excessive noise. The Board has previously conceded noise exposure was sustained from his MOS as an electronic technician in service. See March 2013 Board Remand, p. 5. Service treatment reports reflect that, upon entry into active service, the Veteran did not report any history of hearing loss or ear, nose or throat trouble in the June 1955 Report of Medical History. A June 1955 entrance examination revealed normal findings of the ears and drums upon clinical evaluation and whisper voice test revealed findings of 15 out of 15 in both ears. In the June 1959 separation examination, a clinical evaluation revealed normal findings of the ears and drums and whisper voice test revealed findings of 15 out of 15 in both ears. VA outpatient treatment reports from July 2005 to March 2013 reflect that the Veteran's active problems included sensorineural hearing loss. Although it is unclear when the date of an initial diagnosis was, these records indicate that the diagnosis was made by the September 2010 VA examiner, thereby indicating an initial diagnosis in September 2010. In the September 2010 VA audiology examination, the Veteran reported that his bilateral hearing loss was worse in the right ear and had an onset of 10 years ago. He stated that he subconsciously read lips and paid special attention to people in all conversations. The Veteran also reported having occasional, bilateral tinnitus with an unknown onset. He stated tinnitus occurred one to two times per year and lasted for about 15 minutes. Tinnitus was not bothersome and did not affect his daily activities. He reported service in the Navy from 1955 to 1959 and that he experienced excessive noise as a mechanic without hearing protection from 1955 to 1957. The Veteran stated that he served as a corpsman for 90 days without hearing protection. He also tried to be an electrician, but did not know enough math, so he became a journalist instead, and worked with the military paper, at which time he denied noise exposure. The Veteran reported that, as a civilian, he worked in the post office and was occasionally exposed to machinery noise. From 1953 to 1954 he stated that he worked in an assembly line and a foundry without hearing protection. He denied a medical history, family history or ototoxic drug history of hearing loss. The examiner noted the Veteran did not attribute his hearing loss and tinnitus to his tenure in the military. Audiometric testing revealed that the hearing threshold levels in decibels were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 25 25 25 30 LEFT 15 20 25 30 30 The average puretone threshold was 26 decibels for the both ears. Maryland CNC speech recognition score was 90 percent in the right ear and 80 percent in the left. Thus, the audiometric testing revealed puretone thresholds were not reflective of hearing impairment for VA purposes, but speech recognition thresholds met the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran was diagnosed with normal to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear and normal to moderate sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. After a review of the claims file, the examiner noted that there were no complaints of hearing loss or tinnitus in the service medical records and the Veteran reported having a limited amount of military noise exposure. She found that his puretone thresholds did not meet the criteria for VA disability at the present evaluation, which was 50 years after his military noise exposure. The examiner therefore concluded that it was unlikely that any hearing loss was present in 1959 since hearing loss barely existed today. She opined that it was not at least as likely as not that hearing loss was related to military service. With respect to the Veteran's tinnitus, the examiner noted that the Veteran had tinnitus one or two times a year for about 15 minutes. She found that this was not even a description of normally occurring tinnitus, but was likely unrelated to anything. She opined that it was not at least as likely as not that tinnitus was related to military service. In the November 2012 remand, the Board found that another VA audiology examination was necessary. In so finding, the Board observed that the September 2010 VA examination was inadequate for several reasons. First, the VA examiner appeared to rely on the absence of hearing loss during service as the primary rationale for the opinion, contrary to the holding in Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Evidence of a current hearing loss disability and a medically sound basis for attributing such disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The examiner also did not attribute the hearing loss to any other cause. With respect to tinnitus, the Board found that the Veteran was competent to provide statements regarding symptoms that are capable of lay observation and not of a complex medical matter, which would include experiencing ringing in the ears. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). As the examiner concluded that the Veteran's description of tinnitus was not even a description of normally occurring tinnitus, but likely unrelated to anything, the Board found that an opinion was necessary as to whether the Veteran in fact had tinnitus based on the description of his symptoms and whether such was related to his active military service. Therefore, the case was remanded for a new VA examination to address the aforementioned inadequacies. In a December 2012 report, a VA medical opinion was provided by the VA examiner who provided the September 2010 VA examination. She initially reiterated the audiological findings from the September 2010 VA audiology examination. The examiner then noted that the audiometric thresholds in 2010 barely indicated a hearing loss which was 50 years post-military exposure, however, the word recognition scores would qualify for disability under the VA regulations. She also noted that, a review of the claims file indicated normal whisper tests bilaterally at separation in June 1959. She explained that, although whisper tests alone cannot discern a hearing loss, whisper tests used in conjunction with other information, such as no complaints of hearing loss or tinnitus in the service medical records, hearing thresholds that do not meet the criteria for a disability for 50 years after military service, a military job that was inconsistent with noise exposure (journalist) and the Veteran's statements that he was a corpsman for only 90 days out of four years and that he did not serve in combat, would give more credence to the fact that the Veteran likely did not have hearing loss or tinnitus from his military service. Therefore, she opined that it was less likely than not that hearing loss or tinnitus was related to military noise exposure. In the March 2013 remand, the Board found the November 2012 remand instructions were not fully satisfied. First, the Board instructed that the Veteran be afforded a new examination, but only a December 2012 supplemental opinion was obtained. Second, the examiner did not provide any clarification as to whether the Veteran had a current tinnitus disability. In addition, the Board found that the December 2012 supplemental opinion was inadequate for two reasons. First it was based on the lack of any complaints or findings of hearing loss in service, however, the absence of in-service evidence of hearing loss was not fatal to a claim for service connection. Second, the opinion was also based on the lack of noise exposure from the Veteran's military job as a journalist, however the opinion did not appear to acknowledge: (1) the Veteran's reported history of working as a journalist for only 2 of his 4 years of service as well as a mechanic and briefly as an electrician in the September 2010 VA examination; and (2) his DD form 214, which reflects his MOS was an electronics technician. Noting that medical opinions have no probative value when they are based on an inaccurate factual predicate, the Board again remanded the claim for an adequate VA audiology examination. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 460 (1993). In a March 2013 VA audiology examination, audiometric testing revealed that the hearing threshold levels in decibels were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 25 25 20 30 LEFT 15 20 25 30 30 The average puretone threshold was 25 decibels for the right ear and 26 decibels for the left ear. Maryland CNC speech recognition score was 100 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left. Thus, the audiometric testing revealed that neither puretone thresholds nor speech recognition scores met the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 at that time. The Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss in both ears. The examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss was not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event in military service. She found that, upon enlistment and separation, normal whisper tests were documented. She also found no reported or complaints of hearing loss in the service medical records. The examiner noted that in the current examination, the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits at all ratable frequencies, with the exception of a 30 decibel loss at 4000 Hertz in the right ear and a 30 decibel loss at 3000 and 4000 Hertz in the left ear. She concluded that he did not meet the criteria for a disability under VA regulations. The examiner then found that, it was 54 years after the Veteran's active service and his hearing still did not met the criteria for a hearing loss disability and therefore acoustic trauma was unlikely. The Veteran's history of service in the Navy from 1955 to 1959 was noted. He reported having worked as a mechanic, working with aircraft fueling and defueling, and as a journalist in service. The Veteran stated that he experienced excessive noise in service in the form of jet engines. He also stated that he worked with a newspaper for one year, that the other times he was around aircraft and that hearing protection was limited. The Veteran reported that he was exposed to noise daily at times, including when he was overseas in 1957. He also noted a history of civilian occupational noise exposure, working on a farm and at a foundry before the Navy. The Veteran stated that after the Navy, he worked for the post-office from 1961 to 2000. He denied a history of recreational noise exposure. The Veteran also denied a medical history, family history or ototoxic drug history of hearing loss. He reported he first perceived hearing problems within the past few years and was unsure when it originated. The Veteran reported having right-sided intermittent tinnitus. He stated that it occurred infrequently and randomly and he could not pinpoint a pattern. He also reported that he might have it once, and then it will come back in a month or more or even in a week. The onset was unsure since it was so infrequent. He described tinnitus as a ringing. The examiner opined that it was less likely as not that tinnitus was a symptom associated with the Veteran's hearing loss. She explained that, although hearing loss and tinnitus were commonly present together, they were not necessarily mutually occurring and had varying causes, to include certain medications, stress, anxiety, nicotine, sodium, excessive caffeine, etc. She found that hearing loss did not cause tinnitus or vice versa. The examiner also opined that it was less likely than not that tinnitus was caused by or a result of military noise exposure. She found that there were no reports or complaints of tinnitus in the service medical records and that acoustic trauma was unlikely due to the Veteran's hearing threshold levels at that point. She noted the Veteran's report that his tinnitus was right-sided, infrequent and random. She also cited to treatise information from a VA Learning University Module 1 on defining tinnitus and its effects. The examiner noted that noise must last at least five minutes and occurred two times per week to be considered chronic tinnitus and that transient ear noise was a common auditory phenomenon. After a review of the record, the Board concludes that entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is not warranted. In this regard, the Board finds that bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus were not shown in service or for many years thereafter, and there is no probative medical evidence of an opinion relating the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus to his military noise exposure. Initially, the Board observes that the Veteran's service information supports his reports of exposure to excessive noise during his active service. While the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hearing loss, it was not shown in service or for many years thereafter, and there is no probative medical evidence of an opinion relating the Veteran's hearing loss to his military noise exposure. The Board notes that the service treatment reports are absent of any complaints of or treatment for hearing loss at any time during his active service. The Veteran did not report any history of hearing loss or ear, nose or throat trouble in the June 1955 Report of Medical History. In addition, the June 1955 entrance examination as well as the June 1959 separation examination revealed normal findings of the ears and drums upon clinical evaluation and whisper voice tests at both entrance into and separation from service revealed findings of 15 out of 15 in both ears. Thus, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran's hearing loss had its onset during his active service. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's statements asserting that his hearing loss is related to military noise exposure from his active service and that he was exposed to excessive noise in service. The Veteran is competent to attest to the exposure to excessive noise in service and these particular statements are competent evidence as they are also supported by his MOS as noted above. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2009). The Board cannot reject this lay testimony concerning this out of hand. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011) (indicating the Board cannot make categorical exclusions of competency of lay evidence, such as in this circumstance; rather, there has to be discussion of the reasons and bases for rejecting the lay evidence). The Board finds however, that the Veteran is not competent to specify that a current hearing loss disability is related to any noise exposure during his active service, as this would constitute an audiological conclusion which he is not competent to make. The lay statements presented throughout the duration of the appeal also do not provide any lay evidence of a continuity of symptoms of hearing loss since active service. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Sometimes the layperson will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer."). Colantonio v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (recognizing that in some cases lay testimony "falls short" in proving an issue that requires expert medical knowledge); Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (concluding that a Veteran's lay belief that his schizophrenia had aggravated his diabetes and hypertension was not of sufficient weight to trigger the Secretary's duty to seek a medical opinion on the issue). Rather, in the September 2010 VA audiology examination the Veteran reported that his bilateral hearing loss had an onset of 10 years ago, and on VA examination in March 2013 he stated that he first perceived hearing problems within the past few years and was unsure when it originated. The post-service medical evidence of record does not demonstrate findings of hearing loss or a hearing loss diagnosis until the September 2010 VA examination, approximately 51 years after the Veteran's discharge from active service. Therefore, the record evidence indicates no showing that the Veteran's hearing loss disability was manifested to a compensable degree within a year following service for purposes of presumptive service connection. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. There is also no competent medical evidence of a link between the Veteran's current hearing loss disability and his active duty service. In this regard, the Board observes that the March 2013 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss was not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event in military service. In her rationale, she noted the normal whisper tests in service upon enlistment and separation and found no reports or complaints of hearing loss in the service medical records. In addition, the examiner found that it was 54 years after the Veteran's active service and his hearing at the time of the current examination he had not met the criteria for a hearing loss disability. Most significantly, this opinion reflects that the absence of hearing loss in service together with the amount of time between the Veteran's reported acoustic trauma in service and the present examination, which demonstrates some hearing loss, did not lend support to her furnishing an opinion relating his active service and his current hearing loss. The examiner's conclusions are supported by the speech reception thresholds as well as the word recognition scores noted in the March 2013 VA examination. The Board observes this examination and opinion has been accepted as adequate and are therefore afforded significant probative value. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(c) (4), 3.326 (2012). Given the medical complexity of this issue, the Board finds that the VA examiner's opinion outweighs any lay opinion provided by the Veteran. While the Board does not dispute that a hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 had been demonstrated in the September 2010 VA examination, that alone does not support a nexus to the Veteran's active service. In finding that there is no competent medical evidence of a link between the Veteran's current hearing loss disability and his active service, the Board does not rely solely on the March 2013 VA medical opinion, but rather the evidence of record as a whole, which does not indicate any competent and credible evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's active service, including any in-service noise exposure, and his current hearing loss. Moreover, again, there is no objective medical evidence of hearing problems at any time in the record until approximately 51 years after the Veteran's period of service. Finally, the Board observes that the earliest complaint of hearing loss in the record the Veteran's May 2010 claim or service connection, approximately 51 years after his separation from active service. Therefore, as there is no probative evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's active service and his currently diagnosed hearing loss, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is related to his active military service. As such, the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. With respect to the claim for tinnitus, the Board observes that the Veteran has reported having symptoms of tinnitus since his acoustic trauma in service. Due to the subjective nature of [tinnitus], the veteran, as a layperson is competent to testify as to his symptoms. See Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 403 (1995). See also Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372; see also Davidson, 581 F.3d 1313. The Board finds however, that the Veteran is not competent to specify to specify that he has a current tinnitus disability or that these symptoms since service were, in fact, a tinnitus disability, as these would constitute audiological conclusions which he is not competent to make. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4 ("Sometimes the layperson will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer."). Colantonio, 606 F.3d at 1382 (recognizing that in some cases lay testimony "falls short" in proving an issue that requires expert medical knowledge); Waters, 601 F.3d at 1278 (concluding that a Veteran's lay belief that his schizophrenia had aggravated his diabetes and hypertension was not of sufficient weight to trigger the Secretary's duty to seek a medical opinion on the issue). The Board also finds that the Veteran's report of having symptoms of tinnitus since his acoustic trauma in service while competent, are not credible evidence as they are internally inconsistent. In making a determination, the Board has an obligation to evaluate the credibility of evidence and to assign probative weight to competent evidence. See Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (recognizing the Board's "authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own inherent characteristics and its relationship to other items of evidence"). As to some of the factors that go into making these determinations both the Veterans Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) have provided guidance. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F3.d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating that "the Board, as fact finder, is obligated to, and fully justified in, determining whether lay evidence is credible in and of itself, i.e., because of possible bias, conflicting statements, etc."); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (stating that "[t]he credibility of a witness can be impeached by a showing of interest, bias, inconsistent statements, or, to a certain extent, bad character."). In this regard, the Board observes that the Veteran reported in the September 2010 VA examination that the onset of tinnitus was unknown and he also reported to the April 2013 VA examiner that he was unsure of the onset of tinnitus since it was so infrequent. Accordingly, the Board finds the statements regarding the onset of his reported tinnitus since active service are internally inconsistent with his other statements of record. The medical evidence of record, including VA outpatient treatment records and the March 2013 VA examination, does not demonstrate that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus or that tinnitus was diagnosed at any time during the pendency of this appeal. The March 2013 VA examination does not confirm that the Veteran has a current tinnitus disability. The Board observes that the examiner found that symptoms were less likely than not associated with the Veteran's hearing loss and that it was less likely than not that tinnitus was caused by or a result of military noise exposure. However, she also noted the Veteran's complaints that tinnitus was right sided, infrequent and random, and found, in citing to treatise information, that noise must last at least five minutes and occurred two times per week to be considered chronic tinnitus and that transient ear noise was a common auditory phenomenon. In fact, there was no specified diagnosis of tinnitus in the March 2013 examination report. As noted above, the March 2013 VA examination has been accepted as adequate and is therefore afforded significant probative value. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(c) (4), 3.326 (2012). Therefore, there is no competent medical evidence of a current tinnitus disability. VA compensation only may be awarded to an applicant who has disability existing on the date of application, not for past disability. See Degmetich v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 208 (1995); 104 F.3d 1328 (1997). The Court since has clarified that this requirement of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of the claim, even if the disability resolves prior to VA's adjudication of the claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 , 312 (2007). Here, though, there simply is no showing the Veteran has had a diagnosis of tinnitus at any point since the filing of this claim in May 2010. The VA examiner in September 2010 noted that the Veteran had ringing one or two times a year for about 15 minutes and found that this was not a description of normally occurring tinnitus. Similarly, the March 2013 VA examiner considered the Veteran's complaints of right-sided intermittent ringing that occurred infrequently and randomly, and indicated that the Veteran does not have tinnitus. Rather, she stated that transitory ear noise is a common auditory phenomenon. These examiners' opinions are found to be more probative than that of the Veteran, given their medical expertise. In Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992), the Court noted that Congress specifically limited entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents had resulted in disability. See also Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992); Gilpin v. Brown, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) [service connection may not be granted unless a current disability exists]. A "current disability" means a disability shown by competent evidence to exist. Chelte v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 268 (1997). In Degmetich, it was observed that 38 U.S.C.A § 1131, as well as other relevant statutes, only permitted payment for disabilities existing on and after the date of application for such disorders. The Federal Circuit Court observed that the structure of these statutes "provided strong evidence of congressional intent to restrict compensation to only presently existing conditions," and VA's interpretation of the law requiring a present disability for a grant of service connection was consistent with the statutory scheme. Degmetich, 104 F.3d at 1332; and see Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding VA's interpretation of the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A § 1110 to require evidence of a present disability to be consistent with congressional intent); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992) (the law limits entitlement for service-related diseases and injuries to cases where the underlying in-service incident has resulted in a disability). Simply put, in the absence of proof of present disability, namely tinnitus, there can be no valid claim. In reaching the conclusion above the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for tinnitus is denied. ____________________________________________ P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs