Citation Nr: 18147056 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 17-51 630 DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his tinnitus had its onset during active duty service, and has persisted since that time. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded to the claimant. The Veteran seeks to establish service connection for tinnitus. Specifically, he maintains that a current tinnitus disability is related to in-service acoustic trauma due to an explosion from two bombs that were set off by a West German terrorist group in the building he was working in. He indicated that his tinnitus began after the bombing, and has continued sporadically since that time. The Board finds the Veteran’s statements related to in-service noise exposure to be competent and credible. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007). The Board notes that the Veteran is service connected for specified trauma stressor disorder in connection with the subject bombing incident. In his October 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran reported that the force of the explosion was sufficient to shake the building and shatter glass windows around him. He further indicated that after the blast his ears were ringing, but the ringing went away. He indicated that he experienced ringing in his ears sporadically since the incident. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma during his active duty service. Thus, in the present circumstance, the Board finds that in-service acoustic trauma resulted in the onset of tinnitus and the disease has been continuously present since the Veteran’s separation from service. The Board acknowledges that a September 2016 VA authorized audiological examination indicated that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to his active duty service. The examiner stated that the Veteran reported his tinnitus began after service at some point in the 1980s, and noted noise exposure to small arms fire with hearing protection in service and significant post-service noise exposure in manufacturing. However, the examination report did not address the bombing incident that the Veteran claims led to his tinnitus, and he further asserted in his October 2017 VA Form 9 that during his post-service work in manufacturing he was required to wear hearing protection at all times when exposed to loud noises. The Veteran supported his assertion regarding the use of hearing protection after service with annual occupational hearing examination reports dating from 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, which either directed the Veteran to continue wearing hearing protection or specifically noted the completion of training and fitting for hearing protectors. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that the evidence of record sufficiently establishes that he was exposed to acoustic trauma during his active service, and that he experienced tinnitus symptoms in service and continuously, albeit sporadically, since separation. Although there is no competent medical evidence in support of the claim, tinnitus is an organic disease of the nervous system which is capable of lay diagnosis. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). While there is some disagreement regarding the date of onset of the Veteran’s symptoms between the September 2016 examiner’s report and his October 2017 VA Form 9, the Board notes that the examiner did not address the 1976 bombing incident and the evidence of record does not otherwise indicate that the Veteran lacks credibility concerning his statements indicating an onset during service.   Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is in support of the Veteran’s claim, and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Ferguson, Associate Counsel