Citation Nr: 21011850 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 18-24 603 DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus is due to in-service exposure to noise. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1966 to June 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2020, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, an appellant must show (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, or nexus, between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to noise exposure during service. He specifically asserts that he developed tinnitus as a result of his in-service exposure to loud noises during his duties as a vehicle mechanic. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for tinnitus in May 2017. The Veteran reported an onset of a ringing sound in both ears “a few years ago.” The examiner noted that due to the Veteran's military occupational specialty, avionics mechanic, there is a high probability rating for hazardous noise exposure. The examiner, however, opined that the onset of tinnitus occurred roughly 45 years after discharge from the military, therefore it is less than likely that tinnitus is the result of military noise exposure. In an August 2017 private treatment note the examiner stated the Veteran first noticed the ringing while in the military. The Veteran reported acoustic trauma from gunfire on the firing range as well as incoming mortar rounds while in Vietnam. The Veteran described the tinnitus as a constant “ring” in both ears. Tinnitus symptoms were present at time of testing. The private examiner opined “giving his exposure to incoming mortar explosions, gunfire without hearing protection, noise from pneumatic tools in the motor pool and his report of ringing in his ears while in the military, I would find that it is at least as likely as not that the tinnitus symptoms that the veteran is reporting today may be related to military service.” At the December 2020 Board Hearing, the Veteran’s witness, when asked “do you have anything to add, since you’ve been with him all these years?”, testified that when the Veteran was questioned by the witness “what’s wrong?”, the Veteran would respond with “my ears are ringing.” The Veteran’s representative maintained that the private audiologist was “a well-known and well-respected doctor.” The Board finds that there is unfavorable and favorable medical opinion evidence. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Board shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). As such, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that his tinnitus is attributable to his military service. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Edwin B. Esmenda, Associate 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.