Citation Nr: 20006509 Decision Date: 01/27/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 14-04 439 DATE: January 27, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that tinnitus began during active service, was present to a compensable degree within one year of discharge or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1967 to September 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Saint Petersburg, Florida. He filed this claim in March 2010. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. The Veteran contends that his current tinnitus was caused by his in-service hazardous noise exposure to engines, rockets, and 50-caliber machine guns without hearing protection as a marine engineer on a landing craft for one year while stationed in Vietnam. The Veteran's allegations of exposure to acoustic trauma during active duty are consistent with his military service. Exposure to acoustic trauma during active duty is conceded. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus, and evidence shows that in-service hazardous noise exposure occurred, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that tinnitus began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran did not allege, and the record does not indicate, that he had tinnitus during active duty or within a year of discharge from service. On his original application for compensation, the Veteran indicated that he was claiming entitlement to service connection for tinnitus but he did not report on the form when the disorder began. In March 2010, the Veteran wrote that he was exposed to loud noise while serving as an engineer on a landing craft and that he has constant ringing in his ears. He again did not report when the disorder began. In March 2010, VA sent a letter to the Veteran requesting additional evidence in support of the tinnitus claim. In April 2010, the Veteran responded to this request by indicating that he had nothing further to submit in support of the claim. Nowhere in the claims file is there any statement wherein the Veteran reports that he had tinnitus during active duty or within one year of discharge. At the time of the 2011 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he was unable to determine when the tinnitus began. The first evidence of complaints of tinnitus is dated decades after the Veteran's discharge. Service connection is not warranted for tinnitus on a presumptive basis for a chronic disease (other organic diseases of the nervous system). 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). As set out above, the Veteran does not actually allege that his tinnitus was present during active duty. The evidence of record indicates he was unable to determine when the disorder began. To the extent that the Veteran is linking current tinnitus to active duty based own opinion, the Board finds this to be without probative value. The issue as to etiology is medically complex, as it requires medical knowledge and the interpretation of acoustic testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran was not medically trained. The only medical opinion which addresses the etiology of the tinnitus weighs against the claim. At the time of the January 2011 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he had moderately severe ringing in his ears that was long-standing but he could not determine a time of onset. The tinnitus was reported to be constant. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s current tinnitus is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to engine noise. The rationale was that, according to cited medical literature, “only seldom does noise cause a permanent tinnitus without also causing hearing loss.” The VA examiner explained that the Veteran’s medical history did not show in-service hearing loss. It was observed that the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits (WNL) at induction in July 1967 and at separation in September 1970 and his service treatment records were silent for tinnitus. The examiner wrote that it was possible that aging and recreational noise exposure have contributed to the tinnitus. The examiner was unable to determine the etiology of the tinnitus without resort to speculation as it would be speculative to allocate a portion of the current tinnitus to each of these etiologies. The Board finds this opinion, with regard to whether tinnitus was linked to active duty, is entitled to probative weight. The opinion is based on an accurate medical history (concession of exposure to noise during military service but no evidence of tinnitus during active duty or for a period of time thereafter) and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran's representative has alleged that the examination is inadequate as it is based on a speculative opinion. The Board finds this argument to without merit. The examiner provided a definitive determination that tinnitus was not linked to active duty. The examiner was unable to determine the current, post-service cause of the tinnitus (aging or recreational noise exposure) without resort to speculation. The Board finds the VA examination to be adequate in addressing whether tinnitus was due to active duty or not. The Board finds there is no competent evidence of record linking current tinnitus to active duty in any way. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim and service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board James Hekel, 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.