Citation Nr: 18157519 Decision Date: 12/12/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 17-05 727 DATE: December 12, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1966 to June 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In September 2017, the Veteran testified during a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to Service Connection for Tinnitus The Veteran contends that he currently has tinnitus, and that the tinnitus had its onset during his active service. Specifically, the Veteran testified that his military occupational specialty required him to test jet engines for several hours per day. See, e.g., September 2017 Board hearing transcript. In addition, the Veteran testified that his tinnitus began during his active service and has continued since his separation from active service. Id. Tinnitus is readily observable by laypersons and medical expertise is not required to establish its existence. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Therefore, the Veteran is competent to describe his tinnitus symptomatology in service and after service, and such subjective complaints have been documented by the medical evidence of record, to include the January 2014 VA examination report. As a result, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus which was initially demonstrated in service. Although the Veteran is competent to report tinnitus symptoms, he is not competent to attribute such symptoms to any particular cause. Such is a complex medical matter that does not lend itself to lay opinion. The Veteran has not been shown to have the medical training necessary to opine as to the cause of his tinnitus. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1331, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran has not indicated that he sought treatment for tinnitus during service, and the Veteran’s service treatment records are absent for any reference to tinnitus. Nevertheless, the Veteran has asserted that he has experienced tinnitus since active service. In this regard, the Board again notes that the Veteran is deemed competent to report the presence of tinnitus as such is subject to lay observation. Tinnitus, as an organic disease of the nervous system, may be service connected where it is shown to be chronic and continuous since active service or where it manifests to a compensable degree within one year of service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (b), 3.309 (a). As discussed above, the Veteran has asserted that he has experienced tinnitus since active service. Although there is evidence of record against his credibility in this regard, the Board finds that, with resolution of doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his assertions are credible and competent, and service connection is warranted for tinnitus. Specifically, the Veteran did not report tinnitus during active service or at the time of separation. The first recorded instance of the Veteran reporting tinnitus in the record is his claim for compensation, which was received in April 2013, approximately 43 years after his separation from active service. See VA Form 21-526, Veteran’s Application for Compensation and/or Pension, received April 2013. However, the absence of contemporaneous evidence in support of his competent assertions does not equate to contradiction of the Veteran’s assertions that he has experienced symptoms continuously since active service. In this case, the Board finds that, with resolution of doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection is warranted for tinnitus. The Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in active service. The service treatment records do not document that the Veteran complained of tinnitus during active service; however, the Veteran is considered competent and credible to identify the presence of tinnitus since his period of active service. See Charles, 16 Vet. App. at 370. In consideration of all of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in active service and will resolve doubt in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. VA’s Duty to Notify and Assist With respect to the Veteran’s claim herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2017); see also Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. G. LeMoine, Associate Counsel