Citation Nr: 21002530 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 555A DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s tinnitus began during active service, 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 April 1976 to April 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in August 2015 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge in January 2019. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This matter was also previously remanded by the Board in June 2019. The Board directed that VA attempt to obtain any records as identified by the Veteran, to obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records, and to obtain a new opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed tinnitus. Following the Board’s remand, VA solicited additional evidence from the Veteran, obtained an opinion regarding his claimed tinnitus, and updated his VA treatment records. As each of the Board’s directives was completed, there is substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for tinnitus. Generally, to establish service connection there must be competent evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the in-service injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The Veteran’s DD-214 reveals that he served in the United States Army as a tank crewman. During the Veteran’s January 2019 hearing, he reported that his job consisted of loading weaponry which exposed him to hazardous noise. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) do not document complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis of tinnitus and the Veteran did not report tinnitus during his December 1978 separation examination. VA treatment records from July 2007 document that the Veteran reported chronic tinnitus. Specifically, the Veteran stated that his tinnitus had been a problem for him for 10 years. In a January 2010 consult, the Veteran reported that he has had ringing in his ears since service. VA treatment records from February 2020 document that the Veteran reported constant bilateral tinnitus for over 30 years. The Veteran appeared for a VA examination in August 2015. In the previous June 2019 Board remand, the Board found the August 2015 VA medical opinion to be inadequate. The Board found that the examiner did not address whether the Veteran’s tinnitus was directly related to his military service. Pursuant to June 2019 Board remand directives, the VA obtained an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s tinnitus in October 2020. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus was less likely than not related to his military service. The examiner explained that although the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise while in service, there is no significant permanent threshold shifts in his service treatment records, which is objective evidence of no permanent auditory damage. The examiner also noted that the Veteran had initially denied tinnitus when he entered into VA care in 2007. The Board finds that the October 2020 VA examiner's opinion is entitled to great probative weight as such considered all of the pertinent evidence of record, to include the statements of the Veteran, and provided a complete rationale, relying on and citing to the records reviewed. Moreover, the examiner offered clear conclusions with supporting data as well as reasoned medical explanations connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A]medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). Further, there is no medical opinion to the contrary of record. Here, upon reviewing all of the pertinent evidence of record, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim. In this regard, the Veteran reported in a January 2010 treatment record and during his June 2019 hearing that he first noticed his tinnitus while in service. However, he also reported in a July 2007 VA treatment record that he had chronic tinnitus problems for the past 10 years. During his February 2020 consult at a VA medical center, the Veteran reported constant bilateral tinnitus for over 30 years. Due to the inconsistencies in the Veteran’s dates of onset for his tinnitus, the Board is giving more probative weight to the medical evidence of record. Although the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise while in service, review of the Veteran’s STRs document normal hearing in service with no significant threshold shifts. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s representative’s statement, during the June 2019 Board hearing, that high frequency hearing loss was documented on the Veteran’s separation examination, however, this statement is not corroborated by the evidence of record. Additionally, the Veteran did not report hearing loss or tinnitus at any time during his active duty service, according to his records, to include his separation examination. As such, the Board finds that a nexus has not been established, and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. In reaching such decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claims for service connection for tinnitus. As such, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal, and his claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. K. Hall, 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.