Citation Nr: 21002707 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 16-59 200 DATE: January 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran incurred tinnitus during active service, and the symptoms thereof have been continuous since his separation from active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 2006 to May 2010. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2019, the Veteran provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge by videoconference hearing. Service Connection Generally, to establish service connection, the evidence must show (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Service connection may also be granted on a presumptive basis for certain chronic diseases if the disability manifested to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period following a veteran’s separation from active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112(a)(1), 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(3), 3.309(a). Tinnitus is considered organic diseases of the nervous system, the presumptive period for which is one year. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(3); Fountain v. Shinseki, 27 Vet. App. 258, 271-72 (2015). Service connection for a recognized chronic disease can also be established through continuity of symptomology. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (b), 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran asserts his tinnitus is due to noise exposure suffered in-service. He reports suffering exposure to loud noises, without hearing protection, including “arms fire or an IED attack, mortar attack, and rocket attack” while stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The record supports entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. Current diagnosis of tinnitus is established by way of a March 2016 VA examination and a September 2015 private medical opinion. As to service, hazardous noise exposure is conceded. DD Form 214 confirms a military occupational specialty (MOS) of combat engineer. The Department of Defense’s Duty MOS Noise Exposure Listing indicates this MOS has a high probability of hazardous noise exposure. In addition, in relevant part, audiologic testing conducted in February 2010, immediately post deployment in Afghanistan (May 2009 to February 2010), confirmed the Veteran was indeed exposed to impulse noise while deployed. Finally, the Board finds the Veteran’s reports of noise exposure to be competent, credible, fitting the circumstances of his service, and supported by the evidence of record. This collective evidence is sufficient to support hazardous noise exposure during service. Given the above, the first and second elements of service connection are met. The third element of service connection is also met. The record contains a September 2015 positive opinion wherein the Veteran’s private care provider correlated his tinnitus to noise exposure in-service. This opinion was predicated on in-person examination and consultation with the Veteran. The Board finds it highly probative and sufficient to meet the third element of service connection. In addition, the Veteran testified to experiencing tinnitus symptoms, of ringing/buzzing in his ears, that started during active service and continued unabated until the present. Although he acknowledged not reporting tinnitus on service separation, he credibly explained that his non-report was due solely to his desire to exit service quickly and not a lack of symptomatology. The Board finds the Veteran to be credible and he is competent to report his symptoms of tinnitus, which is a disability subject to lay diagnosis. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). Moreover, as the Veteran’s statements are deemed credible, and tinnitus is an organic disease of the nervous system, see 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), his reports of continued ringing in his ears since his separation from active service also satisfies the third element of service connection. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b); 3.307; Walker 708 F.3d at 1338. The Board recognizes a March 2016 VA examiner opined against service-connection. This opinion was partially predicated on the Veteran’s lack of report of tinnitus on separation. The 2016 opinion is considered to have less probative value as it was prepared prior to the Veteran’s clarifying hearing testimony wherein he explained his lack of report on separation. In light of the foregoing, the criteria for service connection are met, and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. L. Burroughs, 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.