Citation Nr: 21063547
Decision Date: 10/14/21	Archive Date: 10/14/21

DOCKET NO. 20-08 195
DATE: October 14, 2021

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's tinnitus is etiologically related to his period of service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The service-connection criteria for tinnitus have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served honorably in the United States Air Force from May 1965 to April 1968.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2018 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned in October 2021. 

Service Connection

Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Generally, 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 present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (noting that nexus may be demonstrated by a showing of continuity of symptomatology where the disability claimed qualifies as a chronic disease listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)).

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection because his current tinnitus is the result of in-service noise exposure. For VA purposes, tinnitus has been specifically found to be a disorder with symptoms that can be identified through lay observation alone. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (noting that the Veteran was competent to testify as to ringing in the ears in service and that he experienced such ringing ever since service "because ringing in the ears is capable of lay observation").

Here, the evidence indicates that the Veteran has a current disability. Specifically, in a April 2018 VA audiological examination, the Veteran reported constant tinnitus. Thus, the Board finds that the first element of service connection is established. See Shedden, supra.

Second, the evidence of record indicates in-service noise exposure. At the October 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran provided competent and credible testimony that he was exposed to noise from driving on rough terrain, being on the flight line, and qualifying for large weapons without hearing protection. Further, the April 2018 VA examiner conceded that the Veteran had been exposed to hazardous noise during service. The Board finds there was exposure to noise during service, giving due consideration to the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran's service as shown by his service records and lay evidence. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Thus, the Board finds that the second element of service connection is established. See Shedden, supra.

As to nexus, the evidence is conflicting. The Veteran has stated that his auditory problems began in 1968, when he returned from Vietnam. The Board finds the Veteran's reports as to the onset of symptoms in service, as well as the continuity of his symptoms since service, to be credible. 

In contrast, the April 2018 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is less likely than not related to service. The basis for the examiner's opinion was that there was no medical evidence of hearing loss and that medical literature does not support delayed onset hearing loss. However, the examiner did not address the Veteran's credible reports of constant ringing in his ears since active service. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (lack of medical documentation in service does not by itself render lay evidence not credible). For this reason, the Board accords little probative value to the April 2018 VA examination.

In sum, the preponderance of the competent evidence shows that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his conceded in-service noise exposure. Thus, service connection for tinnitus is warranted.

 

 

A. S. CARACCIOLO

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Laura C. Owens

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.