Citation Nr: 20006906 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/28/20 DOCKET NO. 16-10 380 DATE: January 28, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran’s tinnitus is causally or etiologically related to a period of active military 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, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served during Peacetime and the Vietnam Era from July 1960 to June 1962. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an April 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Seattle, Washington (RO). The Veteran originally filed a claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss in July 2012. The RO considered the claim for tinnitus to be a part of the bilateral hearing loss claim. In an April 2013 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and denied entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran submitted additional evidence in support of the tinnitus claim in July 2013. The RO continued the denial of the Veteran’s tinnitus claim in an April 2014 rating decision. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement in May 2014. A Statement of the Case was issued in February 2016. The Veteran subsequently perfected an appeal to the Board by timely filing of a VA Form 9 Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Veteran was scheduled to appear at a Board hearing on February 7, 2019 but failed to attend, and as of this date has provided no good cause for missing the hearing. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2018). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In addition, service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection may also be granted for certain chronic diseases if manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of separation from active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If there is no evidence of a chronic condition during service or the applicable presumptive period, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service may serve as an alternative method of establishing the second and/or third element of a service connection claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488 (1997). Post-service development of an "organic disease of the nervous system" to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of such service, establishes a rebuttable presumption that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. An "organic disease of the nervous system", to include tinnitus, is subject to presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). Evidence of continuity of symptomatology from the time of service until the present is required where the chronicity of a condition manifested during service either has not been established or might reasonably be questioned. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (b), 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In order to prevail on the issue of entitlement to service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). A veteran seeking service connection must establish the existence of a disability and a connection between service and the disability. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Whether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is an issue of fact. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition where the condition is simple, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991). Equal weight is not necessarily accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence necessarily has the same probative value. The Board has the authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own inherent characteristics and its relationship to other evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran maintains that his tinnitus is due to noise exposure during service. He specifically asserts that he was a machinist mate who worked in the engine and boiler room of a ship during active service, and that he developed tinnitus as a result of his in-service exposure to steam turbines and heavy gun fire. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for hearing loss and tinnitus in January 2013, which was associated with the Veteran’s file in March 2013. The Veteran reported recurrent tinnitus consisting of very intermittent noises approximately once a month. The Veteran reported that he did not know the onset date. The Veteran reported exposure to four inch guns aboard a destroyer escort during service. The Veteran reported working primarily in the boiler room and around steam turbines aboard the ship. The Veteran reported occupational noise exposure of installing pumps for 40 years, including driving a pick-up truck and exposure to noise from a rotor hammer and drilling rig. The Veteran reported recreational noise exposure consisting of annual hunting of up to a month in duration, operating a power boat for five to 10 years, and operating home power tools including very occasional use of a chain saw. The Veteran reported no use of hearing protection for any noise exposure during or after service. The examiner noted that VA has conceded that the Veteran’s MOS has high probability of noise exposure. The Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The examiner subsequently opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to military noise exposure. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus is less likely than not related to service as there is no nexus of onset of tinnitus that coincides with military service. The Veteran’s service records are silent for complaints of tinnitus. An audiological evaluation was not conducted at enlistment or separation from service. A whisper test was conducted, and the results were in the normal range. However, whisper voice tests are insensitive to high frequency hearing loss and not reliable evidence of normal hearing or hearing impairment. VA has conceded that the Veteran's MOS indicates a high probability of hazardous noise exposure. The Veteran is service-connected for bilateral hearing loss and so he is considered to have sustained an in-service noise injury; tinnitus is known to be a symptom often occurring with hearing loss. Therefore, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Bynum, 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.