Citation Nr: 20039985 Decision Date: 06/11/20 Archive Date: 06/11/20 DOCKET NO. 18-09 537 DATE: June 11, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus was not caused by active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1962 to October 1966. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing, at which it was indicated that he was representing himself in the appeal. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Generally, service connection requires (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a causal relationship (nexus) between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Because of the inherently subjective nature of tinnitus, it is capable of lay observation. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). That is, the confirmation of the existence of tinnitus does not require any medical expertise (i.e. is not “complex” in nature), and assuming the allegations of the veteran are credible, testimonial evidence of an origin of the condition in service can be used to support a claim for service connection. At his December 2016 VA audiological examination, the Veteran asserted that he has tinnitus. The Veteran stated that his tinnitus is steady and constant ringing. The examiner noted that steady ringing in the ears had been noted for several years but the specific time of onset was unknown. The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion after a review of the Veteran’s claims file and an in-person examination. The examiner rationalized that there is a lack of evidence in the claims file of any complaints of any tinnitus or hearing loss during service and the time between service and the date of the evaluation is significant without evidence of any audiology treatment in the intervening years. The examiner opined that therefore, it is less likely than not caused by or a result of military noise exposure or acoustic trauma. The RO requested an addendum opinion from the December 2016 examiner to address the fact that older Veterans do not seek medical treatment or VA help for many years and to acknowledge the Veteran’s combat action ribbon. In the June 2017 addendum, the examiner noted that the Veteran reported noting tinnitus a few years ago, and no specific time or incident propagated the tinnitus. The examiner further stated that the Veteran's hearing loss is a low frequency rising to normal mid to high-frequency loss, and this is not consistent with acoustic trauma or noise exposures. The examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is less likely to be the result of military exposures. In his October 2017 notice of disagreement, the Veteran stated that he was not treated for tinnitus in the Marine Corps, but he has had no occupation in the last 50 years around loud noises and felt like the denial of service connection was wrong. At his April 2020 hearing, the Veteran stated that the ringing in his ears started just a few years ago. He stated that he performed office work after service, and the only noise exposure he has had was in service as a rifleman and grenadier. He explained that he was around a lot of guns firing and explosions and it was very loud. The Board notes that the claims file does not contain complaints of or evidence supporting tinnitus until the Veteran filed his application for benefits in October 2016. Thus, the Board finds the December 2016 VA negative nexus opinion to be well-reasoned, and it is afforded significant probative value. It is of greater probative value than the Veteran’s own lay opinion, as he could recall the onset of tinnitus as only a few years ago and does not have the training or credentials needed to provide a medical opinion as to the etiology of a disorder not observed since separation from service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the tinnitus is not etiologically related to his active service. The claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Alexis B. Markeson, 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.