Citation Nr: 18152855
Decision Date: 11/26/18	Archive Date: 11/26/18

DOCKET NO. 17-13 356
DATE:	November 26, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for tinnitus is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
With resolution of the doubt in his favor, the Veteran has tinnitus caused by active service. 
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been approximated.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1137, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.326(a) (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from June 1950 to May 1954.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
Service Connection
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 service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
In addition to direct service connection, service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) if a chronic disease or injury is shown in service, and subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease or injury at any later date, however remote, are shown, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. Tinnitus (an organic disease of the nervous system) is considered a chronic condition under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a).  See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015).  Therefore, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) is applicable. 
Service connection may also be established for tinnitus based upon a legal presumption by showing that a disorder manifested itself to a compensable degree within one year from the date of separation from service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). 
In deciding an appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.  Gabriel v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39 - 40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990).  Regarding the competency of lay evidence, the Board must determine whether a veteran’s particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent.  Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); See also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  A veteran is competent to report symptoms, as symptoms require only personal knowledge of what is observed through the use of his senses, not medical expertise.  Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994).  Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology, where the determination is not medical in nature and is capable of lay observation.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007).  Lay evidence may establish a diagnosis of a simple medical condition, a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or symptoms that later support a diagnosis by a medical professional.  Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377.
The VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim, with the veteran prevailing, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b)
1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus
The Veteran contends his tinnitus was caused by in-service noise exposure. The Veteran served on active duty as a jet engine mechanic. 
The Veteran is competent to self-report a diagnosis of tinnitus. His military duties were consistent with acoustic trauma, also evidenced by his service-connected hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) (due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of such Veteran’s service as shown by such Veteran’s service record, the official history of each organization in which such Veteran served, such Veteran’s medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence). 
(Continued on the next page)
 
The Veteran’s reports of tinnitus and its onset have been inconsistent throughout the time since he left active service. However, the Board will grant the benefit on application of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56 (1990).
 
Vito A. Clementi
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	N. Miller, Associate Counsel