Citation Nr: 21041570 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 17-03 182 DATE: July 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ringing in ears, also known as tinnitus, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding the Veteran's tinnitus arose in service or for many years thereafter and is against a finding that it is related to acoustic trauma in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1971 to August 1971. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ringing in ears Generally, direct service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires: (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. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases, including tinnitus, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For the showing of a 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. If chronicity in service is not established, a showing of continuity of symptoms after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a layperson. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). The Veteran is competent to diagnose and report tinnitus. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). The evidence shows a current diagnosis of tinnitus, and VA has conceded that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma in service. Thus, the first two elements of service connection are met. The question is whether tinnitus is related to the acoustic trauma or had its onset during or within one year of separation from service. The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for reports, diagnosis, or treatment of tinnitus. There were also no changes in his hearing during service. The Veteran does not actually assert that tinnitus began in service or within one year of separation. In January 2016 the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. It was found the Veteran did have ringing in his ears. The Veteran reported his tinnitus began "a long time ago" but did not report a clear time of onset. Along with the Veteran's high probability of hazardous noise exposure as an Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, he also reported significant civilian noise exposure. The January 2016 VA examiner opined the Veteran's current tinnitus is less likely than not related to his service. The examiner explained it is not possible to determine the etiology of tinnitus using current clinical technologies; instead, etiology is typically inferred from patient history. Here, the Veteran "reports significant military and noise exposure" but did not give a specific onset or occurrence of tinnitus, merely stating it began "a long time ago." The examiner also stated there were no reports of tinnitus in the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs). The Board finds this opinion probative, as it provided clear conclusions with supporting data, and reasoned medical explanations connecting the two. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124-25 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Board does not doubt the Veteran's sincere belief his tinnitus is related to acoustic trauma during military service. However, he has not reported continuous symptoms since service, onset in service, or provided any reasoning to support his assertion that his current tinnitus is related to hazardous noise in service. A mere conclusory generalized lay statement that a service event or illness caused the claimant's current condition is insufficient to establish medical etiology or nexus. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (2010). The Veteran contends he was not given an adequate examination, stating the VA examiner only tested his hearing and "never ask me about the ringing in my ears." See December 2016 Notice of Disagreement. However, upon a complete review of the record the Board finds the examination was adequate, particularly because there is no clinical test for tinnitus, and the examiner fully completed all sections of the tinnitus examination, including providing specific answers to questions about tinnitus including its onset, frequency, bilateral nature, and impact on ordinary conditions of daily life. The Board finds it particularly persuasive that direct quotations from the Veteran are used in the examination report, indicating that the examiner did ask the requisite questions and capture the Veteran's words. While the Veteran is competent to report his tinnitus, there is no evidence indicating it onset during service or within one year after service, and no adequate nexus evidence in support of the claim. As such, service connection for tinnitus is not warranted on a presumptive basis, based on continuity of symptomatology, or direct service connection. In sum, the preponderance of the competent evidence is against a finding the Veteran's tinnitus arose in service or for many years thereafter and is against a finding that it is related to acoustic trauma in service. The claim is denied. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Brewer, 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.