Citation Nr: 22012268 Decision Date: 03/03/22 Archive Date: 03/03/22 DOCKET NO. 16-20 853 2DATE: March 3, 2022 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Giving the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, his tinnitus manifested to a compensable degree within one year following a period of active-duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1978 to December 1990 and from April 2011 to January 2012. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. The Board notes that in 2019, the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. The Veteran believes that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for certain chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system, such as tinnitus, when such disability is manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of discharge from active-duty service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; see also VAOPGCPREC. 2-03 at paras. 2-3 (May 22, 2003). Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260, a 10 percent disability rating is warranted for recurrent tinnitus. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Veteran will receive the benefit of the doubt. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The clinical evidence documents the Veteran's current diagnosis of tinnitus. See March 2016 CAPRI. Service records show the Veteran's report that while on active duty in Afghanistan, he was exposed to a blast or explosion. The Veteran reported several incidents of live fire while in Afghanistan as well. Service records confirmed that the Veteran served in Afghanistan. See May 2015 STR Medical. On another occasion, the Veteran reported that there was an attack consisting of bombs, small arms, and RPG rounds. See February 2015 VA 21-0781. During a 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his tinnitus began around June 2012, about six months after the end of his deployment to Afghanistan. See July 2015 C&P Exam. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran was exposed to loud noises during active-duty service and finds the lay assertions regarding his in-service noise exposure and the onset, nature, and progression of his tinnitus competent and credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Board gives this evidence great probative value. The Board also finds the above evidence from the service records highly probative. Based on the Veteran's credible reports, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's tinnitus manifested to a degree of 10 percent within one year of discharge from active-duty service. Therefore, giving the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Dougan, 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.