Citation Nr: 21009299 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 19-13 765 DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus (also claimed as ears ringing) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that tinnitus began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1988 to September 1992. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2018 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Service connection for tinnitus is denied. The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to exposure to loud noises in service. Specifically, at his June 2020 Board hearing, he testified that he was exposed to mechanized infantry vehicles and that every four to five months, he was exposed to loud shooting. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury or disease. The Board concludes that, although the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diagnosis of tinnitus began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. The service treatment records fail to reflect any findings attributed to tinnitus. The Veteran testified that he did not seek treatment until after he got out of service. Moreover, the service treatment records fail to provide any indication that the Veteran was routinely exposed to hazardous noises. They fail to reflect that his hearing was regularly tested. The records reflect that the Veteran was a chemical operations specialist. This is consistent with the Veteran’s testimony. Post-service treatment records reflect that the Veteran denied changes in his hearing and tinnitus in August 2009 and May 2013. The records reflect that he first sought treatment in May 2018. He denied changes in his hearing and tinnitus again in January 2019 and March 2019. He failed to mention ringing in his ears when he filed claims for a psychiatric disability and a kidney disability in January 2011. Consequently, the evidence of record reflects that the Veteran did not report tinnitus or ringing in his ears until decades after his separation from service. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in July 2018. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus is less likely than not related to service. His rationale was that tinnitus is known to be a symptom associated with hearing loss. He noted that the audiologic data showed the Veteran’s hearing to be within normal limits. (The Veteran testified that his hearing was “fine . . . better than most people”). The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran believes his tinnitus is related to in-service acoustic trauma. He is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of pathology. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA examiner. As the preponderance of the evidence is against this claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim of service connection for tinnitus must be denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Prem, 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.