Citation Nr: 18150037
Decision Date: 11/14/18	Archive Date: 11/14/18

DOCKET NO. 15-30 875
DATE:	November 14, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
Resolving any doubt in favor of the Veteran, bilateral tinnitus is attributable to noise exposure during service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1154(b), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus
Compensation may be awarded for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131.  Service connection basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that an injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
The Veteran contends that bilateral tinnitus began after exposure to aircraft propeller and engine noise in service.
The Board concludes that the evidence of record supports the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus.  The record shows that VA has conceded acoustic trauma.  The record further shows that the Veteran had symptoms of ringing ears in service, persistent symptoms since service, and a current diagnosis of tinnitus.  38 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
Service records show the Veteran’s military occupational specialty was aircraft propeller repairman, which has a high probability of noise exposure.  The Veteran’s statement in support of claim indicates that he worked on the turbo propellers of C-130 aircraft, and that his ringing ears began during service with exposure to these noises.
Further, the Veteran testified before the undersigned in November 2018 that he had tinnitus, ear ringing, that began in service after exposure after to aircraft propeller and engine noise; and that he has had ringing in his ear starting in service and continuity since service until the present.  The Board finds that his statements are highly competent, credible, and consistent with the circumstances of his service.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (each disabling condition for which a veteran seeks service connection must be considered based on factors including the basis of places, types, and circumstances of service as shown by service record); see Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (“ringing in the ears is capable of lay observation”).
Although the record includes a July 2015 VA negative medical opinion, the Board finds that the medical opinion has diminished probative value as it is not supported by complete rationale.  The examiner did not provide a reasonable basis to afford more weight to post-service noise exposure, which was limited and minimal per testimony, as opposed to sustained noise exposure during active service.  Moreover, that same examiner opined in June 2015 that tinnitus may be due to service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability.
Accordingly, affording the benefit of any doubt to the Veteran, the claim is granted.

 
C.A. SKOW
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Thaddaeus J. Cox, Associate Counsel