Citation Nr: 20004271 Decision Date: 01/17/20 Archive Date: 01/17/20 DOCKET NO. 18-39 649 DATE: January 17, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran had tinnitus at any time during the appeal period. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1955 to July 1957. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2019); see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a “competent” source. Second, the Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308 (2007). Third, the Board must weigh the probative value of the evidence in light of the entirety of the record. A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 4 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997). In the absence of evidence of a current disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). 1. Tinnitus The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that he developed tinnitus as a result of in-service noise exposure. In this regard, the Board concedes that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise in service. However, the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with tinnitus. In this regard, VA treatment records from February 2007, January 2010, and March 2010 all show either no history for tinnitus or that the Veteran denied having tinnitus. Furthermore, the Veteran denied having tinnitus during his September 2016 VA examination. The Board observes that a necessary element for establishing entitlement to service connection is the existence of a current disability; it is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, for VA purposes, a current disability exists when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim is filed or at some point during the pendency of that claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence fails to show evidence of a current disability, service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. CHRISTOPHER LAMB Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Brunot, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.