Citation Nr: 21011564 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 15-40 167 DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus is related to in-service noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army (Army) from January 1966 to December 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board wishes to apologize to the Veteran for the delay in the full adjudication of his claim. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran is seeking entitlement to service connection for a tinnitus disability which he attributes to hazardous noise exposure while serving in the Army. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 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). As an initial matter, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current tinnitus disability for VA purpose. See November 2012 VA Examination Report. In addition, the August 2019 VA medical examiner reported the Veteran experienced a significant amount of in-service hazardous noise exposure, which is also confirmed by the Veteran’s lay statements and corroborated by his service record. See August 2019 VA Examination Report; see also Statement in Support of Claim, April 2011; DD-214. Accordingly, a current disability and in-service noise exposure are conceded. The question in this case is whether a causal relationship or “nexus” exists between the Veteran’s tinnitus disability and his active duty military service. The Veteran contends his tinnitus began in service and has continued since that time. Specifically, the Veteran reports he was exposed to constant artillery fire and has had a ringing in his ears since service that sound similar to crickets. See Statement in Support of Claim, April 2011. In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a February 2016 private medical opinion from Dr. P.S. in which the examiner opined that the Veteran’s service in an artillery unit while in the Army caused his tinnitus. The examiner used the Veteran’s statements and military history to conclude his tinnitus was more likely than not caused by occupational exposure to high noise levels in service. While lacking in certain detail, the Board finds the February 2016 private opinion along with the Veteran’s statements of occupational noise exposure to be competent, credible and highly probative on the issue of whether the Veteran’s tinnitus is connected to his in-service hazardous noise exposure. The Board also acknowledges two potentially negative medical opinions provided in November 2012 and August 2013. Specifically, the November 2012 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s tinnitus disability was less likely than not caused by service because the Veteran’s hearing loss was within normal limits at the time of his separation from military service. However, there is no discussion of the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure, work related conditions while in service, or the onset of the condition as reported by the Veteran in his application for benefits. Additionally, the August 2013 private examiner, Dr. J.J., opined that she could not with greater than 50 percent certainty say that the Veteran’s tinnitus is secondary to his noise exposure in the service. The examiner did opine that the Veteran’s tinnitus is likely related to his hearing loss. The Board finds that the November 2012 and August 2013 examiner’s opinions are inadequate for adjudication purposes and cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The November 2012 VA examiner relied exclusively on the Veteran’s lack of in-service hearing loss as the basis for an opinion that the Veteran could not be entitled to service connection for tinnitus. Importantly, a finding of in-service hearing loss is not required to establish entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. Put simply, both opinions fail to address the Veteran’s otherwise competent and credible lay statements or state whether his military noise exposure affected his hearing in and after service. Thus, the Board finds the November 2012 and August 2013 opinions are of little probative value because they lack sufficient detail in explaining the etiology of the Veteran’s current disability of tinnitus. After a review of the record, the Board finds the February 2016 private medical opinion, as well as the Veteran’s lay statements, to be the most probative evidence of record in the matter. Specifically, the February 2016 examiner concluded that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to his in-service noise exposure as an artilleryman. The Veteran also competently and credibly described occupational noise hazards and symptoms of tinnitus in service, consistent with his military occupational specialty and service records, and reported the symptoms have continued since service. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to describe what he experienced in service. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). Therefore, when considering the medical evidence of record, along with the Veteran’s lay statements, the preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of finding that the Veteran’s current tinnitus is connected to his military service. Therefore, service connection for a tinnitus disability is warranted. See U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinksi, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher M. Davidson 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.