Citation Nr: 18140167 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-11 491 DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER The claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT Tinnitus was not present in service or until years thereafter and is not etiologically related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Tinnitus was not incurred or aggravated during active duty service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1974 to November 1974. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for tinnitus as it was incurred due to noise exposure during active duty service. In an October 2017 statement, the Veteran reported that he experienced the onset of hearing problems during active service while on the rifle range. The Veteran also stated that his hearing problems have worsened over the years. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The Veteran is competent to report that he has tinnitus and the condition was diagnosed at a November 2014 VA examination. Although service treatment records do not document any complaints or treatment for tinnitus or other ear-related conditions, personnel records establish that the Veteran participated in sharpshooter (rifle) training and was exposed to some noise. The Board will therefore resolve any doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that the first and second elements of service connection—a current disability and in-service injury—are established. Regarding the third element of service connection, a nexus between the Veteran’s tinnitus and the in-service noise exposure, the Board notes that service records do not indicate such a link. No complaints or reports of tinnitus are documented in the service records. There is also no evidence of tinnitus until many years after the Veteran’s separation. In fact, the earliest evidence of complaints related to tinnitus dates from May 2014, 40 years after discharge, when the Veteran filed his claim for service connection. The absence of any clinical evidence for decades after service weighs the evidence against a finding that the Veteran’s tinnitus was present in service or in the year immediately after service. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Veteran has also not reported a continuity of symptomatology since service; the history he provided in an October 2017 statement is that he began having hearing problems during service that worsened through the years. He has not, however, stated that he experienced the onset of ringing in his ears during service that has continued to the present day. The record also contains no competent medical evidence of a nexus between the Veteran’s tinnitus and his active duty service. The only medical opinion of record, that of an October 2014 VA examiner, weighs against the claim. The Veteran has provided an opinion connecting his tinnitus to service, but as a lay person, he is not competent to opine as to medical etiology or render medical opinions. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); see Grover v. West, 12 Vet. App. 109, 112 (1999). The Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms, such as the onset of tinnitus, but finds that his opinion as to the cause of the condition simply cannot be accepted as competent evidence. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1131, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In sum, the post-service evidence of record shows that the first evidence of the Veteran’s claimed tinnitus was decades after his separation from military service. In addition, there is no medical evidence that the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his active duty. The Board therefore concludes that the evidence is against a nexus between the Veteran’s claimed disability and his active duty service. Accordingly,   the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and it is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Riley, Counsel