Citation Nr: 22017340 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 20-10 380 DATE: March 24, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the award of monetary benefits. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is in approximate balance that the Veteran's current tinnitus was incurred in the line of duty from acoustic trauma during active duty for training (ACDUTRA). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.6, 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had multiple periods of ACDUTRA: August to December 1965; July to August 1966; May 1967; May 1968; August to September 1969; and August to September 1970. See service personnel records received in May 2019 (record of assignments at page 16). He also had additional inactive service with the New Hampshire Army National Guard. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a January 2021 Board hearing and a transcript is of record. The Board has thoroughly reviewed all evidence in the claims file. In every decision, the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination, adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review by the Court. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 527 (1995). Although the entire record must be reviewed by the Board, the Court has repeatedly found that the Board is not required to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143, 149 (2001) (rejecting the notion that the Veterans Claims Assistance Act mandates that the Board discuss all evidence). Rather, the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the appellant. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. The appellant must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See id. Moreover, the Board will not repeat here in full pertinent regulations that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) previously provided in the Statement of the Case (SOC). Since this decision fully grants the benefits sought on appeal, the Board need not discuss the duties to notify and assist. The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. He contends that he currently has tinnitus, which he believes is etiologically related to acoustic trauma he experienced during ACDUTRA periods. 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). Active military, naval, or air service includes active duty as well as any period of ACDUTRA during which the individual concerned was disabled from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a). Active military, naval, or air service also includes any period of inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty or from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident which occurred during such training. Id. Accordingly, service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in, or aggravated, while performing ACDUTRA, or from injury (but not disease) incurred or aggravated while performing INACDUTRA. The claimant bears the burden of establishing Veteran status during periods of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. See, e.g., Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 174-75 (2010). After a full review of the record, the claim is granted. The evidence summarized below is in approximate balance that the Veteran's current tinnitus was incurred in the line of duty from acoustic trauma during ACDUTRA periods. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a); Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391, 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Current tinnitus disability: see, e.g., February 2020 VA audiology note; March 2020 VA primary care note (active problem list notes subjective tinnitus); January 2021 hearing testimony; May 2021 VA audiological examination. The Veteran is competent to self-diagnose tinnitus. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Acoustic trauma from weapons firing during ACDUTRA periods: see, e.g., photographs and accompanying statement submitted in November 2018 (Veteran competently and credibly stated that the photos depict him using large firearms without hearing protection at Ft. Drum, New York during 1967 ACDUTRA period); service personnel records (noting completion of M-1 rifle training in August 1965 and M-14 rifle training in September 1965); January 2021 hearing testimony (Veteran competently and credibly recalled acoustic trauma from weapons firing during service, including from rifles during 1965 basic training ACDUTRA period). May 2021 VA audiology opinion (competently and persuasively opining that the Veteran's tinnitus is at least as likely as not caused by or a result of military noise exposure, namely exposure to weapons firing, as being around this type of noise would at least as likely as not cause tinnitus for both ears). In conclusion, affording the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, service connection for tinnitus is granted on a direct basis. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Janofsky, 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.