Citation Nr: 21073321 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-50 869 DATE: December 8, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In an unappealed December 2011 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for tinnitus. 2. Evidence received since the December 2011 rating decision is new and material. 3. The evidence shows that the Veteran's tinnitus began during his military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The December 2011 rating decision, wherein the RO denied service connection for tinnitus, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103. 2. New and material evidence has not been received, and the previously denied claim for service connection for tinnitus is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from August 1967 to May 1971, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam from May 17, 1970 to May 3, 1971. This matter come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 rating decision. The Veteran seeks to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for tinnitus. In general, rating decisions that are not timely appealed are final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. If new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim that has been disallowed, VA must reopen the claim and review its former disposition. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108. The threshold for determining if there is new and material evidence is low and has been met in this case. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). In seeking VA disability compensation, a Veteran generally seeks to establish that a current disability results from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. "Service connection" basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection can also be established through application of statutory presumptions, including for chronic diseases like organic diseases of the nervous system, that become manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation of service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. At multiple VA examinations, the Veteran indicated that he began to experience tinnitus during his military service when he was around significant noise. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The primary role of the Board in adjudicating the tinnitus claim, is to assess the credibility of the Veteran's statements. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, the Board finds the Veteran's reports as to the onset of his tinnitus credible, and he has credibly reported that his tinnitus began in-service and has continued to the present time. The Veteran has not attempted to bolster or exaggerate his symptoms. Moreover, it has already been acknowledged that the Veteran developed hearing loss as a result of his military noise exposure, which would be consistent with the finding that tinnitus also developed as a result of military noise exposure. Therefore, the evidence in this case is evenly balanced enough so as to allow application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule as required by law and VA regulations. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, the criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Carole Kammel, 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.