Citation Nr: 21006484 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-04 241 DATE: February 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to noise exposure in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1988 to July 1997. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. This matter was previously remanded for further development by the Board in September 2018. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is related to service, to include as a result of exposure to hazardous noise in service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to hazardous noise exposure in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). A December 2016 VA examination shows the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. Service treatment records (STRs) show multiple complaints related to hearing loss and significant threshold shifts. August 1996 and October 1996 STRs reflects that the Veteran reported being exposed to significant noise in the galley from the ventilation/exhaust systems and steam kettles. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. On this question there are probative opinions both in favor of and against the claim. The evidence against the claim includes the VA examination of May 2013 and the addendum opinion of September 2019. The May 2013 VA examination was found to be inadequate for adjudication purposes in the September 2018 Board decision, because the examiner did not address the Veteran’s reports of in-service noise exposure and STR complaints. The addendum opinion of September 2019 reflects that the examiner opined the Veteran’s tinnitus is less likely than not related to service. The examiner reasoned that though the Veteran was exposed to significant military noise during service, the earliest reported date of onset is five years after separation from service, and current tinnitus research does not support the existence of delayed onset tinnitus due to noise exposure. The examiner added that the Veteran’s hearing in 2013 was well within normal limits for VA purposes. The evidence in favor of the claim includes a VA examination of December 2016. The examiner opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s tinnitus was caused by or a result of military noise exposure. The examiner indicated this opinion was based on the Veteran’s case history, his description of symptoms and onset of tinnitus, and evidence of a significant threshold shift due to noise exposure in service. The Board notes that the Veteran reported having a constant ringing in his ear since 1989/1990. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s current tinnitus is related to service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs 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.