Citation Nr: 20028810 Decision Date: 04/23/20 Archive Date: 04/23/20 DOCKET NO. 17-50 875 DATE: April 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Tinnitus is as likely as not related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from August 1974 to August 1978. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury sustained or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Certain chronic diseases, such as an organic disease of the nervous system, may be presumed to be service connected if manifested to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year after separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus. After review of the evidence, the Board finds in favor of the claim. To that end, the Veteran contends that his disability is the result of exposure to loud noises in service. He reports a history of military noise exposure from his duties as an Avionics Instrumentation Systems Specialist, including working on the flight line on F4C fighters and operating electrical power supplies (powered by small jet engines) to support work on those aircrafts. The Veteran stated that he first noticed ringing in his ears his during the 1980s. He reports, however, that he is sensitive to loud noise and that he has been since service. Based on the likelihood that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise related to his MOS, the RO has conceded military noise exposure. In relation to his claim, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2015. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) that the Veteran’s tinnitus was caused by or a result of military noise exposure. The examiner reasoned that there were no complaints of tinnitus in the service treatment records and that the Veteran reported the onset of his tinnitus after leaving service. The examiner stated that when the Veteran was asked if he recalled having tinnitus in service, the Veteran stated “no, I don't recall that.” Based on the Veteran’s statements, the examiner found that tinnitus occurred after he left service and that there was no evidence that could be found linking the Veteran’s tinnitus to service. Therefore, the examiner found that the Veteran’s tinnitus was less likely than not caused by noise exposure in service. In a May 2019 opinion, however, Dr. C noted that during the Veteran’s military career he was an Avionics Instrumentation Systems Specialist during which he was reportedly exposed to excessive noise from runways, planes, diesel engines, etc. while working on the runway. Dr. C noted that, based on his MOS, the VA conceded military noise exposure. It was also noted that the Veteran complained of “ringing in his ears” during military service as well. The Veteran contended that 1980 was not the onset of his tinnitus but rather when he realized the severity of his condition. Dr. C opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral tinnitus was related to his active service. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. C stated that although the Veteran’s entrance and exit examinations resulted in normal hearing thresholds, excessive noise effects, especially on unprotected ears can have lingering effects (showing up at a later date) as it is probable with the Veteran. The Board has been presented with positive and negative evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's tinnitus. In weighing the positive and negative evidence of record, the Board finds in favor of the claim for service connection. Although the Veteran’s tinnitus was not formally diagnosed in service, positive evidence has been submitted showing a link between the Veteran’s service and his current tinnitus. VA has conceded military noise exposure due to the Veteran’s military occupational specialty and the Veteran has presented credible testimony as to his in-service noise exposure and his issues since that time. The credible lay statements of record in conjunction with the medical opinion from Dr. C place the evidence at least in equipoise. Because there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be applied in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see Dela Cruz v Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, the claim for service connection for tinnitus is granted. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T.S. Willie 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.