Citation Nr: 18144825
Decision Date: 10/25/18	Archive Date: 10/25/18

DOCKET NO. 16-34 135
DATE:	October 25, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
Tinnitus is etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Tinnitus was incurred in active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1101, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 2003 to April 2006 and his decorations include a Combat Infantry Badge.
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1101; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).  To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim.  Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996)
The Veteran has asserted that he has tinnitus as a result of acoustic trauma sustained while in active service.  Specifically, the Veteran has reported acoustic trauma in the form of explosions and gunfire.  A review of the Veteran’s service separation form shows that his military occupational specialty (MOS) while in active service was infantryman with a Combat Infantry Badge.  Therefore, the Board concedes the Veteran’s exposure to acoustic trauma while in active service.
A review of the service medical records are silent for treatment for or a diagnosis of tinnitus while the Veteran was in active service.  However, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced tinnitus while in active service and has continued to experience tinnitus since his separation from active service.  
The Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced tinnitus and that the symptoms have continued since service.  Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991).  Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible.
The Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.  In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006).  The Veteran is competent to identify tinnitus and his statements have been found credible. 
In sum, the Board has conceded acoustic trauma during active service.  The Veteran has competently reported that he first experienced tinnitus while in active service and that he has continued to experience it since that time and those statements have been found credible by the Board.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is at least in equipoise.  Therefore, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (West 2014); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).


 
Gayle Strommen
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Acosta