Citation Nr: 21040195 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 983 DATE: July 2, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1960 to August 1964. On appeal is a February 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied service connection for tinnitus. In June 2021, a hearing before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) was held. The matter is now before the Board for appellate review. Service Connection To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran contends that he has tinnitus as a result of his active service. More specifically, the Veteran states "I was a driver for the pilots of alert aircraft. I would take them to their aircraft and pick them up and had no hearing protection." The question for the Board is whether the Veteran's current diagnosis of tinnitus began during active service or is etiologically related to an in-service disease or injury. The Board finds that competent, credible, and probative evidence establishes that the Veteran's tinnitus is etiologically related to his active service. A review of the Veteran's DD Form 214 shows he served in the United States Air Force, that his military occupational specialty (MOS) during his active service was Vehicle Operator, and that he was awarded the small arms expert marksmanship ribbon. The Board finds that the Veteran's report of hazardous noise exposure is consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. Therefore, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during service. Service treatment records are silent as to any complaint, diagnosis, or treatment of tinnitus. However, the Veteran is competent to report that he first experienced tinnitus during active service, and that his symptoms have continued since that time. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. In January 2016, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. Audio testing was conducted, and the puretone thresholds indicated the Veteran had bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. As for tinnitus, the examiner noted the Veteran reported ringing in the ears started around 2005 and he believes it could be from the noise from jet engines. In addition, he stated he fired weapons in service with both hands and did not use any hearing protection. The examiner opined that it is less likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral constant tinnitus is related to military noise as vehicle operations because hearing was normal during service duty with no reports of hearing loss or tinnitus during service. The examiner also stated there is post military occupational/recreational noise exposure. At the June 2021 Board hearing in this matter, the Veteran reported in service noise exposure and intermittent ringing in the ears since that time, continuing to present day. First, the Board finds the January 2016 medical opinion to be inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the Board notes that the examiner failed to adequately consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinion is not adequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. The Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Veteran is competent to identify tinnitus, and as noted above, the Board finds him credible in that respect. In light of the above, while the evidence is not unequivocal, it has nonetheless placed the record in relative equipoise. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported noise exposure in service and tinnitus since service. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. The Board notes there is no objective testing for tinnitus. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is at least in equipoise. Therefore, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). M. Mills Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Jiggetts 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.