Citation Nr: 18148135 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 16-44 268 DATE: November 7, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in relative equipoise that tinnitus had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. 3.102, 3.303, 3.309, 3.310 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1970 to October 1971, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This case comes on appeal of a December 2015 rating decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.304. Service connection generally requires 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. Walker v. Shinseki, 701 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), including organic diseases of the nervous system, the nexus element of service connection may also be established by demonstrating continuity of symptoms since service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed.Cir.2013). 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(3) provides for presumptive service connection for chronic diseases that become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within 1 year from the date of separation from service. Tinnitus may be considered an organic disease of the nervous system for the purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). The Veteran contends that he has a current disability of tinnitus that began in service after exposure to loud noise. The Board notes that tinnitus is a disease that is capable of lay observation; the Veteran is therefore competent to testify to its onset and present existence. Service treatment records are silent for complaints of tinnitus symptoms, as is the Veteran’s examination on separation from service. However, the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) of Military Policeman is recognized to have a moderate probability of noise exposure. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the Veteran was trained in small arms, 50-caliber guns, M60 machine guns, and grenade launchers. The Veteran has testified that during his military service in Vietnam, he was exposed to rocket and mortar attacks while stationed at Chu Lai and Da Nang, and that time of the rocket attacks were close in proximity. See, Statement in Support of Claim, October 2015. In December 2015, the Veteran underwent a VA examination for hearing loss and tinnitus. At that time, the examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was caused by in-service noise exposure, but stated that there was no current diagnosis of tinnitus. In his February 2016 notice of disagreement, the Veteran reported that he told the examiner at the time of the examination that he had experienced ringing in the ears since service. Furthermore, the Veteran’s prior statement regarding the onset of tinnitus was of record and was not addressed by the examiner. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence is at the very least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in service. The Veteran’s testimony is competent and credible. Although there is no in-service documentation of tinnitus, the Veteran’s service is consistent with noise exposure, as further evidenced by the prior grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The VA examiner’s opinion, meanwhile, does not have significant probative value as it did not address the Veteran’s competent claims of a current tinnitus disability. Accordingly, as the evidence is at least in relative equipoise, the Board must grant the claim. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Giaquinto, Associate Counsel