Citation Nr: 18149122 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 16-08 804 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1998 to June 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an April 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Baltimore, Maryland. In her substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veteran’s Law Judge of the Board. See VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals, received February 2016. However, in August 2018, the Veteran contacted the RO and stated that she wished to withdraw her hearing request. Under 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (e), a request for hearing may be withdrawn by an appellant at any time before the hearing. Therefore, the Board finds that the hearing request has been withdrawn, and will proceed with appellate review. 1. Entitlement to Service Connection for Tinnitus The Veteran contends that she currently has tinnitus, and that the tinnitus had its onset during her active service. Specifically, the Veteran reported that her military occupational specialty required her to wear headphones for twelve hours per day and listen to a constant radio frequency. See Notice of Disagreement, received April 2015. In addition, the Veteran reported that her tinnitus began in approximately 2003. Id. Tinnitus is readily observable by laypersons and medical expertise is not required to establish its existence. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Therefore, the Veteran is competent to describe her tinnitus symptomatology in service and after service, and such subjective complaints have been documented by the medical evidence of record, to include the April 2015 VA examination report. As a result, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus which was initially demonstrated in service. Although the Veteran is competent to report tinnitus symptoms, she is not competent to attribute such symptoms to any particular cause. Such is a complex medical matter that does not lend itself to lay opinion. The Veteran has not been shown to have the medical training necessary to opine as to the cause of her tinnitus. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1331, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran has not indicated that she sought treatment for tinnitus during service, and the Veteran’s service treatment records are absent for any reference to tinnitus. Nevertheless, the Veteran has asserted that she has experienced tinnitus since active service. In this regard, the Board again notes that the Veteran is deemed competent to report the presence of tinnitus as such is subject to lay observation. Tinnitus, as an organic disease of the nervous system, may be service connected where it is shown to be chronic and continuous since active service or where it manifests to a compensable degree within one year of service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (b), 3.309 (a). As discussed above, the Veteran has asserted that she has experienced tinnitus since active service. Although there is evidence of record against her credibility in this regard, the Board finds that, with resolution of doubt in the Veteran’s favor, her assertions are credible and competent, and service connection is warranted for tinnitus. Specifically, the Veteran did not report tinnitus during active service or at the time of separation. The first recorded instance of the Veteran reporting tinnitus in the record is her claim for compensation, which was received in March 2015, approximately 12 years after her separation from active service. See VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, received March 2015. However, the absence of contemporaneous evidence in support of her competent assertions does not equate to contradiction of the Veteran’s assertions that she has experienced symptoms continuously since active service. In this case, the Board finds that, with resolution of doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection is warranted for tinnitus. The Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in active service. The service treatment records do not document that the Veteran complained of tinnitus during active service; however, the Veteran is considered competent and credible to identify the presence of tinnitus since her period of active service. See Charles, 16 Vet. App. at 370. In consideration of all of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in active service and will resolve doubt in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. VA’s Duty to Notify and Assist With respect to the Veteran’s claim herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2017); see also Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. G. LeMoine, Associate Counsel