Citation Nr: 21076483 Decision Date: 12/23/21 Archive Date: 12/23/21 DOCKET NO. 19-28 297 DATE: December 23, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's tinnitus is related to his in-service exposure to acoustic trauma. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1953 to December 1954. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2020, the Board, in pertinent part, remanded the issue of service connection tinnitus. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to his military service. For the following reasons, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. In this case, there has been conflicting evidence as to whether the Veteran has or had tinnitus. For instance, in the November 2018 VA examination, the Veteran denied tinnitus. An April 2021 VA examination report shows that the VA examiner notes that the Veteran's chief complaint was "[b]ilateral hearing loss and tinnitus"; however, the VA examiner also wrote in the examination report that the Veteran denied tinnitus. Also, a November 2021 VA otolaryngology appeared to find that the Veteran has or had tinnitus during the appeal period, as she provided a positive nexus opinion between the Veteran's tinnitus and his military service. Notably, tinnitus is a disability for which a lay person may offer a competent diagnosis. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (holding that ringing in the ears is capable of lay observation). To this end, in June 2018, the Veteran submitted a VA compensation claim seeking service connection for tinnitus. In the February 2019 Veteran's notice of disagreement (NOD) he indicated that his tinnitus was the result of his military service. In light of the Veteran's claim seeking service connection for tinnitus (which suggest that the Veteran experienced tinnitus as he submitted a claim of service connection for tinnitus), his NOD providing an assertion regarding his tinnitus, the April 2021 VA examination report indicating that the Veteran's chief complaint included tinnitus, and resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran has or had tinnitus during the appeal period. With respect to the in-service injury, the Veteran related his tinnitus to his in-service loud noise exposure while assigned to an armored unit in service. Indeed, the Veteran's DD Form 214 shows that he was assigned to the tank Co. 2nd battalion 2nd Armored Cavalry. Therefore, the Veteran's claimed exposure to loud noise during service is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service, and is credible. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Thus, the in-service injury requirement has been met. The remaining question is whether there is a nexus between his tinnitus and in-service noise exposure. In a November 2021 VA medical opinion report, a VA otolaryngology indicated that she reviewed the Veteran's claims file and opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is due to his in-service noise exposure. The VA otolaryngology reasoned that, [tinnitus is related to damage to the inner ear hair cells. Once they are damaged there is no reversing this process. With repetitive noise exposure over a prolonged period of time these hair cells are injured and put a patient at risk for tinnitus. Many times this is seen in a delayed onset and not immediately, as subclinical damage can occur that can manifest later in time. While he did have noise exposure in his post-service occupation the damage that was incurred during service more than likely contributed to the [V]eteran's tinnitus later in life. See VA medical opinion report (November 2021). The November 2021 VA opinion is entitled to significant probative weight, as the VA otolaryngology explained the reasons for the conclusions based on an accurate characterization of the evidence of record and her medical expertise. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning). Importantly, there is no opinion to the contrary. In sum, the most probative evidence shows that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his military service. Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Ashley Castillo Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Bock 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.