Citation Nr: 18156951
Decision Date: 12/11/18	Archive Date: 12/11/18

DOCKET NO. 17-22 688
DATE:	December 11, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for tinnitus is granted.  
FINDING OF FACT
Tinnitus originated during active service.  
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.326(a).  
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active service from March 1974 to October 1978.  
Service Connection for Tinnitus
The Veteran asserts that service connection for tinnitus is warranted as he initially experienced tinnitus during active service after being exposed to flight line related noise while performing his Air Force duties as a material facilities specialist.  
Service connection may be granted for a recurrent disability arising from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R § 3.303 (a).  Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).  
The service treatment records do not refer to tinnitus or ringing of the ears.  The service personnel records state that the Veteran served with the Air Force as a material facilities specialist and delivered supplies on various Air Force bases.  
The report of a March 2014 audiology examination conducted for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) states that the Veteran presented a history of recurrent tinnitus since “I got out of tech school in the military in 1974.”  The Veteran was diagnosed with recurrent tinnitus.  The VA examiner stated that she “cannot provide a medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s tinnitus without resorting to speculation.”  The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) observes that the phrase “without resort to speculation” should indicate the limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of a particular examiner.  Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010).  The opinion in the March 2014 VA examination report express the examiner’s limitations.  
In his May 2014 notice of disagreement, the Veteran asserted that he experienced tinnitus after being exposed to flight line noise while performing his duties as a material facilities specialist at various Air Force bases.  
The Board finds that the evidence is in at least equipoise as to whether the diagnosed recurrent tinnitus arose during active service.  The Veteran served in the Air Force as a material facilities specialist.  He reported having been exposed to Air Force flight line related noise while delivering supplies during the course of his military duties.  The Board finds that his statements to be credible and consistent with the duties of as a material facilities specialist.  The Veteran has been diagnosed with recurrent tinnitus.  The Veteran is competent to report that tinnitus was present in service and that it has existed from service to the present.  38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App 370, 374 (2002).  Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board concludes that service connection is warranted for tinnitus.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  

 
P.M. DILORENZO
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. T. Hutcheson, Counsel