Citation Nr: A21017199 Decision Date: 10/25/21 Archive Date: 10/25/21 DOCKET NO. 200410-83085 DATE: October 25, 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 current bilateral tinnitus is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from June 1968 to May 1999. The rating decision on appeal was issued in January 2020 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In the April 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). In May 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file and has been reviewed. The Board notes that the Veteran perfected separate AMA appeals for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, sleep apnea, and prostate cancer, as well as for an increased rating for his low back disability to include entitlement to a total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU), which are all currently certified to the Board and awaiting adjudication. As such, these claims will be addressed in a separate decision. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(1). Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that he developed tinnitus from working with diesel engine vehicles for two years while assigned to the 726th Tactical Control Squadron, as well as from his time as a transportation officer supervising troops loading aircraft on the flight line in service. See May 2021 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran also reports he wore hearing protection "a lot" of the times while he was working on the flight line. Id. Alternatively, the Veteran contends that he first developed symptoms of tinnitus while on a civilian flight to basic training in 1968 where his ears "just stopped" during the flight and when he woke up, he realized he had a tinnitus condition. Id. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 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); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The January 2020 rating decision on appeal made favorable findings that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus, and that the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) was that of administrative specialist and transportation officer. Turning to the evidence, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are silent for diagnosis, treatment or complaints of tinnitus. The Veteran is competent to attest to his in-service noise exposure, and the Board will accept as true that he was exposed to loud noise from engines in service, as he so describes. In June 1999, less than one month after separating from service, the Veteran underwent a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) Audio Examination. The examiner acknowledged the Veteran's lay statements that he was around diesel engine vehicles during service but noted that the Veteran denied having tinnitus at that time. Since the Veteran denied having tinnitus, the examiner did not opine as to the etiology of the Veteran's condition. The Veteran's remaining post-service treatment records are silent for diagnosis, treatment or complaints of tinnitus until December 2019 (the date of his application), more than twenty years after service. The central inquiry in this case is whether there is a nexus, or link, between the Veteran's current tinnitus and his in-service noise exposure. In this regard, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2020. The examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is less likely than not caused by or a result of military noise exposure. In support, the examiner identified that there is no report of tinnitus in his service treatment records, or in the post-service medical records until December 2019, the date of his claim. Moreover, the examiner acknowledged that the Veteran denied having tinnitus at his C&P examination in June 1999. Further, the examiner noted that the Veteran reported at the examination, onset of tinnitus beginning 11 years prior to the examination, or nine years after separating from service. Importantly, with respect to the question of whether tinnitus with post-service onset could be related to in-service noise exposure, the examiner opined that the current medical literature does not support a finding that late onset noise-induced tinnitus can exist. The Board finds the January 2020 opinion to be probative because it is based on a review of the record and an examination of the Veteran and it provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Also, the opinion is supported by the evidence found in the record, including the Veteran's lay statements and controlling medical principles. Moreover, this opinion is not contradicted by any other medical evidence of record. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991) (VA may only consider independent medical evidence to support its findings and is not permitted to base decisions on its own unsubstantiated medical conclusions). The Veteran has not submitted any medical opinion evidence that is contrary to the findings of the January 2020 examiner. While the Veteran is certainly competent to report as to the observable symptoms of tinnitus that he experienced and their history, the Board finds his recollection of experiencing tinnitus since service to be not credible, as he specifically denied having tinnitus just after service in 1999, and reported only a 9-year history of tinnitus at his January 2020 examination. The Veteran is not competent to render an opinion as to whether his current tinnitus disability is related to noise exposure during service because of the medically complex nature of such an question. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). Based on the above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus. The January 2020 VA opinion is the most probative evidence of record, and the opinion reflects consideration of the Veteran's history, both in service and after service, as well as his lay statements concerning his noise exposure in service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against a nexus for the issue of service connection for tinnitus. The Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, that doctrine is not applicable in this appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher M. Davidson 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.