Citation Nr: 21021094 Decision Date: 04/09/21 Archive Date: 04/09/21 DOCKET NO. 18-49 152 DATE: April 9, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence does not show that the Veteran’s tinnitus was incurred in, and/or is a result of his active duty, as an infantryman, in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1961 to September 1963. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. In March 2019 the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge, who is no longer employed by the Board. A transcript of this hearing is of record. Although the Veteran was given an opportunity to attend another hearing, the Veteran waived his right to appear for a new hearing. See March 2021 Correspondence. In May 2019, the Board remanded the case to the RO for further evidentiary development. Service Connection for Tinnitus Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in, or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. That determination requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Service connection may be granted for a disability diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability is due to disease or injury that was incurred or aggravated in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, to establish service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313(Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. He explained that he was a part of a combat-ready unit, as combat infantry, in which he had to constantly employ artillery fire, being a gunner in his unit. See October 2018 Board Appeal. At his videoconference hearing, he testified that he used to hear a ringing of his ears, mainly at night, when he was going to bed, and that he still hears the ringing of the ears at night. However, the Veteran noted that he did not have a ringing of the ears during his active service, while he was training with weapons. See March 2019 Videoconference Hearing Transcript. Service personnel records confirmed that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was infantryman. However, service treatment records do not reflect any in-service complaints, treatment, injury and/or events that may be related to tinnitus or ringing ears. After the Board remanded this matter for a VA examination and opinion in May 2019, he underwent a VA examination for hearing loss and tinnitus in November 2020. After this examination, a VA examiner explained that despite asking the Veteran several questions about tinnitus during the evaluation, the Veteran did not report tinnitus, and that thus, without evidence of a current disability, he could not render a medical opinion. Although the Veteran testified during the hearing that he had tinnitus primarily at night, he did not describe any ringing of the ears during service, nor did he provide a date of onset, and post-service treatment records have also been silent about the date of the onset of any ringing of the ears or tinnitus. Rather, post-service treatment records do not show any complaints, manifestations and/or treatment for tinnitus, and the Veteran did not report having tinnitus at any of his examinations, despite being sent to such specifically to address this issue on appeal. Given such, the preponderance of the evidence is against this claim. Service connection for tinnitus is denied. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board V-N. Pratt 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.