Citation Nr: 18157691 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 17-04 513 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service-connection for bilateral recurrent tinnitus, claimed as ear ringing, is granted. FINDING OF FACT There is at least an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral recurrent tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in active duty service in the Army from August 1983 to June 1986, and in the Marines from July 1986 to July 1991. This matter is on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision for bilateral recurrent tinnitus. The Veteran did not request a Board hearing. Service Connection Service connection is granted on a direct basis when there is competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Service connection for chronic diseases listed in 38 U.S.C. sections 1101 (3) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), such as bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, may be established on a presumptive basis if the chronic disease was shown as chronic in service; manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period, usually one year, after separation from service; or was noted in service with continuity of symptomatology since service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (b), 3.307, 3.309(a). When evaluating the evidence and rendering a decision on the merits, the Board is required to assess the credibility and probative value of proffered evidence in the context of the record as a whole. See Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 26 (1998). When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus The Veteran contends that his current bilateral tinnitus was caused by his active service. He asserts that his duties as an Aircraft ordinance technician working with F-18 aircraft and as an Indirect Fire Infantryman working with artillery resulted in ringing in his ears. The Veteran’s DD 214 forms list his occupation as Indirect Fire Infantryman, and as Aircraft Ordinance Technician. The Veteran in his January 2017 Form 9 stated that when he worked as an Indirect Fire Infantryman, he was constantly exposed to artillery fire without proper hearing protection. When he reported ringing in his ears to his platoon leader, the Veteran was told this was part of what it meant to work as an Indirect Fire Infantryman. The Veteran further states that as an Aviation Ordinance Technician, he worked around F-18 Jet aircrafts and Chinook Helicopter 47s for years, which he contends, exposed him to very loud noises that contributed to his tinnitus. The Veteran concludes that he has spent the last thirty-three years living with tinnitus. The Veteran was afforded a February 2016 VA examination for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus. The VA examiner notes the Veteran reported ringing in the ears, and that it started in the 1990s after starting work on F-18 aircraft in 1989. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not show any complaints or treatment for tinnitus. However, the Board finds The Veteran is competent to report that he experienced symptoms and ringing in the ears during this period. His statements are credible and entitled to probative weight, as they are internally consistent and consistent with other evidence of record, which shows that these symptoms combined with his duties and experiences in service were attributable to the Veteran’s current bilateral tinnitus. The February 2016 VA examiner acknowledges a diagnosis for bilateral tinnitus, but provides a negative etiology opinion. However, this opinion appears based upon the finding of no significant threshold changes in both ears during military service, and no complaints of tinnitus by the Veteran during service. The absence of in-service evidence of a hearing disability during service (i.e., one meeting the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385) is not always fatal to a service connection claim. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Evidence of a current hearing loss disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service, post-service audiometric findings meeting the regulatory requirements for hearing loss disability for VA purposes, and a medically sound basis upon which to attribute the post-service findings to the injury in service (as opposed to intercurrent causes). See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The Board finds there is sufficient evidence to support a link between the Veteran’s diagnoses bilateral tinnitus and his acoustic trauma in service, despite the examiner’s findings. In light of the Veteran’s acoustic trauma in service, the current diagnoses of bilateral tinnitus, the Veteran’s credible statements reporting continuity of symptoms since service, the Board finds the evidence is at least in equipoise. As such, the benefit of the doubt is resolved in the Veteran’s favor and service connection for bilateral tinnitus is warranted. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Yang, Law Clerk