Citation Nr: 18149873 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-46 408 DATE: November 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The service-connection criteria for tinnitus have been met 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 1112, 1113 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.304 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably in the United States Navy from December 1972 to September 1975. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection because his current tinnitus is the result of in-service noise exposure. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical 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) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), an alternative method of establishing the second and third Shedden element is through a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology. However, this method may be used only for the chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Tinnitus is a chronic condition for purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). For VA purposes, tinnitus has been specifically found to be a disorder with symptoms that can be identified through lay observation alone. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (noting that the Veteran was competent to testify as to ringing in the ears in service and that he experienced such ringing ever since service “because ringing in the ears is capable of lay observation”). Here, the evidence indicates that the Veteran has a current disability. Specifically, in a January 2015 audiology examination the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with tinnitus. Further, the Veteran was diagnosed with tinnitus during the November 2015 VA examination. Thus, the Board finds that the first element of service connection is established. See Shedden, supra. Second, the evidence of record indicates in-service noise exposure. In February 2016, the Veteran provided a competent and credible statement that he worked on an aircraft carrier and was exposed to noise from the flight deck and from various testing equipment for aircraft system failures. The Veteran’s military personnel records confirmed he was stationed on an aircraft carrier. The Board finds there was exposure to hazardous noise during service, giving due consideration to the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service as shown by his service records and all medical and lay evidence. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Thus, the Board finds that the second element of service connection is established. As to nexus, the evidence is conflicting. As discussed above, the Veteran stated that his auditory problems began from exposure to hazardous noises during service and that his tinnitus has been so constant that he “cannot remember not having ringing in my ears.” However, at the November 2015 VA examination, the Veteran stated that tinnitus that began about 20 years prior. The Board finds the Veteran’s reports as to the onset of symptoms in service to be credible, and finds the Veteran’s statement at the VA examination that his tinnitus had only began about 20 years ago was more likely an error of memory as to the end of his service rather than a definitive start of the Veteran’s tinnitus. The November 2015 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s hearing loss, which is not service connected. However, the examiner did not provide any rationale for this opinion, nor provide an opinion on direct service connection. For this reason, the Board accords little probative value to the November 2015 VA examination. (Continued on the next page)   In sum, based on the entire record, the Board finds the evidence to be relative equipoise in showing that the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his conceded in-service noise exposure. Thus, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Laura A. Crawford, Associate Counsel