Citation Nr: 21003846 Decision Date: 01/25/21 Archive Date: 01/25/21 DOCKET NO. 17-09 723 DATE: January 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, tinnitus is related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1990 to December 1992. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A hearing transcript will be associated with the claims file at a later date. The Veteran seeks service connection for tinnitus. In most cases, service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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 present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Initially, the Board notes that VA concedes that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma based on his military occupational specialty (MOS) of Infantryman. The Veteran’s service records were examined for noise exposure and audiometric test results. The November 1989 entrance examination and November 1992 separation examination show normal hearing. At the January 2016 VA examination, the Veteran that he was exposed to noise during military service as his duties consisted of infantry and artillery. The Veteran reported that he did not use any hearing protection. The examiner reviewed the file and found that there was no shift in the Veteran’s hearing from his 1992 entrance examination and the current 2016 examination. Based on that finding, the examiner determined that in-service noise influence was unlikely and opined that there is no diagnosis because there is no pathology to render a diagnosis. In the present case, the Board finds the Veteran's assertion that he was exposed to acoustic trauma in service to be competent and credible. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308 (2007). Moreover, the Board does not doubt his ability to perceive changes in his audiological acuity. Further, the Board must determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular condition is the type of condition that is within the competence of a lay person to provide an opinion as to etiology. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 -77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). Tinnitus is a disorder with symptoms that can be identified through lay observation alone. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). In this case, the Veteran is competent to report the symptoms of tinnitus, and the Board finds his lay statements to be credible. The Board finds that the January 2016 VA examiner's opinion and the Veteran's lay statements are in relative equipoise. Therefore, the Veteran prevails. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, service connection for tinnitus is granted based upon continuity of symptomatology. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (b). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Hemphill 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.