Citation Nr: 21014693 Decision Date: 03/15/21 Archive Date: 03/15/21 DOCKET NO. 19-23 457 DATE: March 15, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus was caused by his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303. 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Navy from June 1969 to May 1961. In February 2021, he testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) and a transcript is of record. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2020); see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The nexus element may be satisfied by evidence a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service to support a finding of chronicity for certain diseases. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (b), 3.309(a) (2020); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For veterans who served 90 days or more after December 31, 1946, the chronic diseases listed in 38 U.S.C. § 1101(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), including tinnitus are presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101(3), 1112(a)(1) (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(a) (2020). As a lay person the Veteran is competent to self-diagnose tinnitus. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a “competent” source. Second, the Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308 (2007). Third, the Board must weigh the probative value of the evidence in light of the entirety of the record. A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2020). When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 4 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The Veteran has provided credible lay assertions that his tinnitus began in service, and has persisted since service. He recounted his in-service noise exposure working around loudspeakers without hearing protection. In addition, his bunk was against the bulkhead of the ship which magnified the noise of the engine. He is competent to make these observations. There is nothing in the record that renders his statements not credible. There are two opinions of record. The the May 2018 VA examiner noted VA decision letters indicated that the Veteran’s job in-service did not appear significantly probable for noise exposure. Thus, the examiner found that his tinnitus was not related to his time in service. Conversely, in a February 2021 private opinion, the Veteran’s doctor concluded that his tinnitus was due to his in-service noise exposure. The preponderance of the probative evidence is for the Veteran’s claim. While the May 2018 VA opinion is considered, the examiner failed to address the lay evidence of record, specifically the Veteran’s assertions that his tinnitus started in service and has continued. Thus, the Board assigns higher probative value to the Veteran’s lay statements and the February 2021 private opinion. Therefore, as the preponderance of the probative evidence is for the Veteran’s claim, service connection for tinnitus is warranted. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Brunot, 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.