Citation Nr: 18153002
Decision Date: 11/27/18	Archive Date: 11/26/18

DOCKET NO. 16-42 216
DATE:	November 27, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
The evidence is in relative equipoise as to the question of whether the Veteran’s tinnitus began during active service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from October 2010 to December 2012.
1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus
The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.  He filed his claim for tinnitus in November 2013.  He claims that he suffered from tinnitus since 2011.  See, e.g., Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) dated in May 2016.  The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) do not reflect any complaints of tinnitus during his active duty service.  They also do not reflect any complaints of tinnitus during or in connection with his entrance examination.  It appears that there is no separation examination report in the Veteran’s STRs.  In this regard, while the Veteran was afforded a pre-discharge VA General Medical examination in April 2012, such examination did not include audiometric findings.  Similarly, the Veteran's July 2012 physical evaluation board proceedings also do not include audiometric findings.  
The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in May 2016, and in the report of that examination, the examiner indicated that the Veteran does report recurrent tinnitus, and that a separation examination was reviewed and showed no significant change in the Veteran’s hearing at the time of his separation as compared to the time of his entrance examination.  The examiner went on to render a negative opinion as to the etiology of the tinnitus on that basis.  See id.  However, because the Board cannot locate the separation audiometric findings referenced by the examiner, it concludes that the May 2016 VA examination opinion is at least partially based on an error of fact.  Furthermore, according to research posted on the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s (NCBI’s) website, most cases of tinnitus are subjective.  See Diagnostic Approach to Tinnitus, PUBMED.GOV (Jan. 1, 2004), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14727828.  Thus, the Veteran is arguably in the best position to determine when his tinnitus began.  
(Continued on the next page)
 
Considering the above, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claim as to the onset of his tinnitus is equal in probative value to the negative VA examination opinion, since that opinion was based on what is very possibly an erroneous factual basis.  Thus, the Board finds, in turn, that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus began during his active duty service.  Accordingly, the Veteran is entitled to service connection for tinnitus.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107(b).
 
L. BARSTOW
Acting Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	C. Banks, Associate Counsel