Citation Nr: 21073614 Decision Date: 12/09/21 Archive Date: 12/09/21 DOCKET NO. 17-10 185 DATE: December 9, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. THE VETERAN'S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that his military service involved traumatic noise exposure, and that he has experienced tinnitus ever since he sustained acoustic trauma in service. See September 2014 Statement in Support of Claim; June 2016 VA examination report. Further, the Veteran asserts that tinnitus can be triggered months or years after the underlying cause and that delayed onset tinnitus must be considered. See November 2021 Appellant's Post-Remand Brief. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's tinnitus had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1980 to October 1980 and from February 1982 to November 1984. Additionally, the Veteran served in the National Guard from August 1989 to December 2003, with multiple periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. In a decision issued in November 2019, the Board, in pertinent part, denied service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In January 2021, the Court issued an Order that vacated the Board's November 2021 determination with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus and remanded the matter for adjudication consistent with the instructions outlined in a January 2021 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). In the January 2021 JMPR, the parties agreed that the Board erred by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determination that service connection was not warranted for tinnitus. In June 2021, the Board remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). Where a Veteran served for at least 90 days during a period of war or after December 31, 1946, and manifests certain chronic diseases, such as organic diseases of the nervous system, to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In an October 4, 1995, opinion, VA's Under Secretary for Health determined that it was appropriate to consider high frequency sensorineural hearing loss an organic disease of the nervous system and therefore a presumptive disability. The Court has also held that tinnitus is a disease, rather than merely a symptom, and that 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) "includes tinnitus, at a minimum where there is evidence of acoustic trauma, as an 'organic disease[] of the nervous system.'" Moreover, the Court indicated that, as such a presumptive condition, tinnitus warranted consideration of the continuity of symptomatology provisions found at 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). The Veteran's DD 214 shows that he served as a Combat Engineer during his service in the United Stated Marine Corps from February 1982 to November 1984. The Board finds that this military occupational specialty (MOS) has a high probability of noise exposure. Tinnitus is a disorder that is readily observable by laypersons and does not require medical expertise to establish its existence. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The Board finds the Veteran's contentions that he experienced tinnitus since service to be competent and credible. The Board acknowledges that VA audiologists provided negative nexus opinions regarding the relationship between the Veteran's tinnitus and his service in June 2016 and September 2021. See June 2016 VA examination report; September 2021 addendum opinion. However, the Board finds that these medical opinions are inadequate for rating purposes as the rationale provided is based solely on the lack of evidence of tinnitus in the service treatment records. In light of the Veteran's MOS as a Combat Engineer and his competent and credible contentions, the Board resolves doubt in favor of the Veteran, and finds service connection for tinnitus is warranted. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Samuelson, 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.