Citation Nr: 22016885 Decision Date: 03/23/22 Archive Date: 03/23/22 DOCKET NO. 18-09 407 DATE: March 23, 2022 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that tinnitus began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1110, 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 August 1971 to August 1977. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran also disagreed with the denial of service connection for hearing loss, and with the effective date of his right ankle disability. However, his February 2018 substantive appeal was limited to the issue of service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2021. A copy of the transcript is of record. Service connection for tinnitus is denied. The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to noise exposure sustained during service. 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, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) 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 in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of tinnitus began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. At his November 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was exposed to submarine engine noise as part of his MOS as an electronics technician specializing in countermeasures. He also stated that sometime in either 1973 or 1974, he was subjected to pressurized explosions in which the pressure of the submarine changes. He stated that he was 15-20 feet from these explosions (up 1 deck from them). He acknowledged that he probably would not have noticed the tinnitus when he was on board a submarine because he would have been surrounded by all kinds of noises. He stated that he noticed ringing in his ears once he got out of service, and that he did not know he could file a claim for it until many years after service. The service treatment records fail to reflect any findings attributed to ringing the Veteran's ears. His June 1977 separation examination was normal. He completed a Report of Medical History in conjunction with his separation examination. When asked about ear, nose, or throat trouble, he only reported that he coughed up bloody mucus in conjunction with a cold. An incident that he stated occurred years ago. He did not note any ringing in his ears at that time. An August 1975 examination (after the Veteran was subjected to pressurized explosions) was also normal; and he did not report ringing in his ears in an August 1975 Report of Medical History. Post-service treatment records fail to reflect any findings attributed to tinnitus for many years after service. The Veteran underwent VA general examinations for his right ankle in August 1978, August 1983, and September 1985. In the first of these examinations, the ears were noted to be normal, with no hearing loss. In the other two examinations, the section regarding ears was left blank. The Veteran underwent a VA audio examination in May 2017. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's tinnitus was caused by or the result of military noise exposure. He explained that although tinnitus may be caused by many different conditions or agents including but not limited to diet, disease, aging, stress, medication, and work or recreation-related noise exposure, there is no evidence in the military medical records to indicate an onset of tinnitus during or shortly after the period of active duty; and delayed onset of noise-induced tinnitus is not supported by medical research or clinical experience. The Veteran was not diagnosed with tinnitus until decades after service. Although the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of tinnitus during and/or since service, he has not done so in this case. He provided credible testimony. However, he acknowledged that he did not note any ringing in his ears during service. Instead, he noticed it after service (he did not specify exactly how long after service). The Veteran is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding whether tinnitus first notice many years after service discharge is due to his military service. Such a question is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of audiology, pathology and where a medical professional has indicated the causes of tinnitus are multi-factorial. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA examiner's medical opinion. There is no reasonable doubt to be resolved, and service connection for tinnitus is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Prem, 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.