Citation Nr: 18147372 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 15-05 425 DATE: November 5, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus did not originate in service or within a year of service, and is not otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1982 to August 1985. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. Duties to Notify and Assist VA provided the Veteran with 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a)-compliant notice in November 2013. The record also shows that VA has fulfilled its obligation to assist the Veteran in developing the claim, including with respect to VA examination of the Veteran. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has identified any deficiency in VA’s notice or assistance duties. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3rd 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran asserts he has tinnitus as a result of traumatic noise exposure from helicopters while serving as an aircraft mechanic during active service. His DD 214 confirms that he worked with helicopters during his period of service. As such, noise exposure to acoustic trauma is conceded. 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. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board notes that tinnitus is subjective, and the kind of condition to which lay testimony is competent. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (finding Veteran competent to testify to symptomatology capable of lay observation). Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran is competent to relate a history of noise exposure during service and a history of having experienced tinnitus. However, the Veteran has provided inconsistent statements regarding the date of onset of his tinnitus. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) does not show reports or complaints of tinnitus. In a February 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he first noticed his tinnitus around 10 years ago. He described the symptoms as annoying. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus was less likely than not caused by or a result of his military noise exposure. The examiner’s rationale was that the Veteran had only noticed his tinnitus for the past 10 years, many years after separation from the military, and that there were no complaints of tinnitus in his STRs. Although the Board acknowledges the Veteran had indicated in his February 2013 application for compensation that his tinnitus began in service, he thereafter indicated in the February 2014 VA examination that his tinnitus began over 18 years after discharge from military service. The Veteran has not directly disputed these statements. In the March 2014 notice of disagreement, the Veteran’s representative indicated it was plausible that the Veteran misunderstood the question asked or was reporting some additional ear symptoms. This is insufficient to disregard the Veteran’s statements as the Veteran did not confirm any misunderstanding or misstatement. As such, the Board assigns the Veteran’s inconsistent statements regarding the date of onset of his tinnitus low probative value. The February 2014 VA medical opinion found that the Veteran’s tinnitus is less likely than not related to active service. The Board finds this opinion probative as the examiner considered the evidence in the record and provided a clear, logical rationale supporting the conclusion. The Board further highlights the lack of medical evidence or adequate medical opinion specific to the Veteran that was submitted in support of the claim. As noted above, in order to establish entitlement to service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While the evidence establishes a current disability, there is no medical or lay evidence establishing a causal connection between the current disability and the Veteran’s in-service exposure to acoustic trauma. Thus, after reviewing the evidence of record the Board finds there is no causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current tinnitus disability. Although the Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt where the evidence is in approximate balance, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable where, as here, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for tinnitus. The claim is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 58 (1990). CAROLINE B. FLEMING Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Cheng, Associate Counsel