Citation Nr: 18155120
Decision Date: 12/04/18	Archive Date: 12/03/18

DOCKET NO. 16-12 601
DATE:	December 4, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
The evidence supports finding that the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his military service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1101, 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from June 1969 to June 1989. 
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
Tinnitus
To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).
In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded to the claimant.
A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When considering whether lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the 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, supra.
The Veteran contends that he has tinnitus due to his exposure to acoustic trauma in active service.
The RO has conceded in-service acoustic trauma as a result of the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) as a jet engine mechanic and recruiter. In addition, a September 2014 rating decision awarded service connection for bilateral hearing loss.
The Board notes that the Veteran is considered competent to report the observable manifestations of his claimed disability. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). In the present case, the September 2014 VA examiner opined that there was no nexus linking the Veteran’s tinnitus with his military service. However, the Veteran is competent to make reports regarding the symptomatology and onset of the disability and the Board notes that his reports have been confirmed by physician diagnoses. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 
The Board notes that the September 2014 VA examiner based his opinion on the Veteran’s report that his tinnitus began a year and a half prior to examination. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s “extreme time delay between separation from military service and the onset of his tinnitus” led him to believe tinnitus was less likely as not caused by or the result of noise exposure in the military.
However, the Veteran clarified in his substantive appeal (VA Form 9) that he stated that during the year and a half prior to the September 2014 examination, his tolerance for the tinnitus had significantly decreased and that he had in fact experienced tinnitus since active duty. 
The Veteran has consistently reported symptoms of constant “crickets” in the ears since active duty service. The Board finds the Veteran’s statements credible. The nature and circumstances of the Veteran’s MOS supports finding that his tinnitus had its onset in service. Furthermore, he is service-connected for bilateral hearing loss and the September 2014 VA examiner indicated that tinnitus is a symptom of hearing loss. Thus, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994).
In light of the aforementioned, the Board finds the evidence is at least in equipoise regarding service connection for tinnitus and will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55.
 
M. H. HAWLEY
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Norwood, Associate Counsel