Citation Nr: 21027994 Decision Date: 05/10/21 Archive Date: 05/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-22 433 DATE: May 10, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Tinnitus was manifest during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Tinnitus was incurred during wartime service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1965 to April 1967. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2020. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a December 2020 order, the Court remanded the case to the Board for action consistent with a December 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus Generally, to establish service connection a Veteran 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 between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service." Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 131516 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). With chronic disease shown as such in service (or within the presumptive period under § 3.307) so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. For the showing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "Chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required only where the condition noted during service (or in the presumptive period) is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b). Tinnitus is an organic disease of the nervous system and is therefore considered a chronic disease for VA purposes, and service connection based on continuity of symptomatology is applicable in this case. Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 27172 (2015). The Veteran has reported that he currently has tinnitus, which he is competent to diagnose. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377; Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). The Veteran has repeatedly reported that he was exposed to loud noise during service, that he experienced tinnitus during service and that he currently experiences tinnitus. There is no evidence of record that the Veteran's statements to this effect are not credible, and he is competent to report both the onset date of a wholly lay-observable disability as well as its persistency since that date. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377. As such, these statements are entitled to significant probative weight. The Veteran received an audiological examination in July 2015. The examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely than not related to service, as his service treatment records do not contain complaints of tinnitus, and there were no threshold shifts in service. The Board acknowledges the July 2015 opinion of the VA examiner that tinnitus was not related to his service. However, the Board finds the Veteran's repeated and consistent assertions as to continuity of tinnitus since service to be more probative. Again, tinnitus is subjective. We conclude that tinnitus was present since service. Service connection is thus warranted. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Creegan 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.