Citation Nr: 21008508 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-57 428 DATE: February 17, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus has been related to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from January 1963 to January 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The October 2016 rating decision also denied service connection for soft tissue sarcoma and granted service connection for coronary artery disease, assigning a 100 percent rating effective August 5, 2016, and a 10 percent rating effective October 1, 2016. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) concerning these issues. A Statement of the Case was issued in September 2017 regarding tinnitus and soft tissue sarcoma. However, the Veteran only filed a substantive appeal with respect to the denial of claim for service connection for tinnitus. Concerning entitlement to a higher initial rating for coronary artery disease, a September 2017 rating decision increased the Veteran’s rating to 100 percent effective October 1, 2016, a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. In March 2018 correspondence, the Veteran also noted that he wanted to withdraw the matter given the 100 percent disability rating. In August 2020, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned. A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. Service connection for tinnitus Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). To substantiate a claim of service connection, there must be evidence of (1) a current disability (for which service connection is sought); (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal connection between the disease or injury in service and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Some chronic diseases, including tinnitus (as an organic disease of the nervous system) may be presumed to have been incurred in service, if they become manifest to a degree of ten percent or more within the applicable presumptive period. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101(3), 1112(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(a). For those listed chronic conditions, a showing of continuity of symptoms affords an alternative route to service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran contends that he has recurrent tinnitus from his active service. In his May 2017 NOD, the Veteran stated that he served as an aircraft mechanic, flew hundreds of times in C130s, and performed maintenance on the engines while they were still running. With respect to a current disability, the Veteran reports tinnitus, which establishes the existence of a present disability. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Tinnitus is of a nature which is uniquely suited to diagnosis by laypersons, as there is no true objective testing applicable. Concerning an in-service injury or disease, service treatment records do not reveal a report of tinnitus. However, the Board finds that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise as a result of his military occupational specialty as an aircraft mechanic. With respect to etiology, in June 2016, the Veteran was provided a VA audiological examination. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported recurrent tinnitus with an onset more than 20 years ago, but he did not recall the exact date. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus was not at least as likely as not due to military noise exposure, despite his hazardous noise exposure from time as an aircraft mechanic, as there was no evidence of a shift in hearing during active duty service. However, the Board notes that the examiner did not consider whether the tinnitus was otherwise related to service – not just because of a shift in thresholds. Concerning the Veteran’s lay statements as to the onset of his tinnitus, during the hearing before the undersigned, the Veteran testified that he was unable to exactly recall when the tinnitus began. However, he did state that he had ringing when working on tires during service. On the other hand, the Veteran has submitted several statements that he began to experience tinnitus during service and that it continued until the present. In his substantive appeal, he stated that he worked as an aircraft mechanic for over three years in the U.S. Air Force and suffered with tinnitus since his time in service and still suffered today. He stated that he attempted to explain to the VA examiner that he had no hearing or tinnitus problems until his time in the Air Force. The Veteran explained that he told the VA examiner that he had tinnitus for over 20 years, which was consistent with having tinnitus since being exposed to engines during active service— more than 20 years ago. In a January 2021 brief, the Veteran’s representative reiterated that the Veteran had ringing in the ears when he filled tires during service and that was still the sound that he experienced today. The representative again noted that the tinnitus began during active service. Here, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset in active service. Though the Veteran could not recall when asked at his video hearing when his tinnitus began, he did say that he experienced ringing when working on tires during service. Moreover, he has submitted several statements attesting to the chronic nature of his tinnitus since service. Resolving the benefit of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Seay, 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.