Citation Nr: 21029288 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-40 211 DATE: May 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's tinnitus is related to exposure to hazardous noise during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 5102, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from September 2001 to January 2011, with honorable service from September 13, 2001, to July 23, 2007. His service from July 2007 until May 2011 was determined to be dishonorable for VA purposes, and thus, this period does not qualify for VA benefits. This matter was last before the Board in June 2020, at which time it was remanded for further development. The matter now returns to the Board for adjudication. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship (nexus) between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See, e.g., Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran currently has tinnitus and his exposure to acoustic trauma during active duty service has been conceded. This satisfies the requirements of the first two service connection elements. The Board now turns to the final nexus requirement, whether a causal relationship exists between the Veteran's current tinnitus and his exposure to acoustic trauma during active duty service. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not contain complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis of tinnitus. At the time of an April 2001 entrance examination, the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits. An audiogram from May 2007 also showed hearing within normal limits. The Veteran denied tinnitus on post deployment health examinations in February 2008 and July 2003. The Veteran did not undergo audiological testing at the time of his April 2011 separation examination. He initially filed a claim for service connection for tinnitus in June 2011. The record also contains a December 2010 report issued by the Camp Lejeune Naval Hospital Deployment Wellness Center, noting that the Veteran completed a ten-month deployment to Kuwait in 2003 providing convoy security within supply, and a six-month deployment to Iraq in 2005, where the Veteran's base "received mortar attacks every other day," and his area was hit by a mortar on one occasion badly wounding his friend. The record also contains the Veteran's competent September 2011 lay statement describing a 2005 mortar attack at Camp Al Taqaddum, Iraq, involving heavy enemy fire that badly injured his friend and damaged his barracks. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in October 2019 and April 2020. In decisions issued in March 2020 and June 2020, the Board found that both opinions were inadequate. Accordingly, the opinions have no probative value. Following the June 2020 remand, the Veteran was afforded an addendum medical opinion in August 2020. The examiner noted a review of the Veteran's STRs, the Veteran's lay statements, and the December 2010 report issued by the Camp Lejeune Naval Hospital Deployment Wellness Center. The examiner also noted that the Veteran had mild hearing loss at the time of an October 2019 examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was not related to the Veteran's conceded in-service noise exposure. As rationale, the examiner stated that there were no complaints of tinnitus in service, the Veteran filed a claim for tinnitus in 2011 after separation, and that he reported the onset of his tinnitus in 2012. The examiner indicated that these occurrences were after service. Inexplicably, the same audiologist that rendered the August 2020 opinion submitted an addendum medical opinion in August 2020. The second opinion noted a review of the same evidence; however, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's tinnitus was related to active service. In support of the opinion, the examiner cited the Veteran's noise exposure on active duty while deployed in 2003 and 2005, as well as a moderate amount of noise exposure conceded for being a Marine. The examiner also noted that the Veteran's reported onset of his tinnitus was in 2012, within a year of separation from service. Additionally, the examiner noted that should the Veteran had undergone a separation hearing examination, it may have shown decreases in hearing during active service. The Board finds that the second August 2020 addendum medical opinion is highly probative, as it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). As the second opinion was rendered by the same audiologist and on the same date as the first opinion, the Board resolves all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and concludes that the audiologist intended to render a positive nexus opinion. The Board couples the August 2020 opinion with the Veteran's competent and credible lay statements regarding the onset of his tinnitus. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his in-service noise exposure. Accordingly, service connection is warranted for the Veteran's tinnitus. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Marsh II, 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.