Citation Nr: 21002316
Decision Date: 01/13/21	Archive Date: 01/13/21

DOCKET NO. 18-41 620
DATE: January 13, 2021

ORDER

Service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154(a), 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1962 to August 1963.  In January 2021, he testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of this hearing has not yet been associated with the claims file.  However, the absence of the transcript is not prejudicial to the Veteran as the Board is granted the benefit sought on appeal.

The competent and credible evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus began during service and have been recurrent since that time.  The Veteran competently and credibly reported that he first experienced tinnitus as a result of in-service noise exposure.  Service records demonstrate that his military occupational specialty was Air Defense Missile Crewman.  See December 2017 Statement in Support of Claim, Veteran’s April 2018 Notice of Disagreement.  The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his tinnitus symptoms and the Board finds his reports credible.  See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  The Board notes that a February 2018 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s current tinnitus was not related to service; however, because the evidence shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in service, service connection is warranted.  See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994).

 

 

STEVEN D. REISS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Sean G. Pflugner, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.