Citation Nr: 22018308 Decision Date: 03/29/22 Archive Date: 03/28/22 DOCKET NO. 19-19 713 DATE: March 29, 2022 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, his currently diagnosed tinnitus had its onset during his active duty 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 September 1971 to September 1975. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a rating decision issued in October 2018 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In November 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Veteran contends that his current tinnitus had its onset during his active duty service as a result of noise exposure therein and has been recurrent since such time. In this regard, the Board finds that he has a current diagnosis of tinnitus as such disorder can be identified through lay observations alone and he has offered competent and credible descriptions of experiencing tinnitus during his November 2021 Board hearing. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Further, such diagnosis was confirmed by his private treatment records and a September 2018 VA examination. Also, while the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis referable to tinnitus, the Board finds his statements regarding in-service noise exposure to be competent and credible as such are consistent with his military occupational specialty as an aviation ordinance man. Thus, the remaining inquiry is whether the Veteran's tinnitus had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, his military service, to include his noise exposure therein. In this regard, the Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in September 2018. At such time, he reported that his tinnitus started in 1973. Nonetheless, the examiner opined that such disorder was less likely as not a symptom related to his military service. In support thereof, he noted that the Veteran stated his tinnitus started in 1973 after working in aviation ordinance, but hearing protection was used most of the time. He also reasoned that there was no complaint of tinnitus in the Veteran's STRs and, after service, he worked in demolition for 2 years and as a millwright for a while. Thus, the examiner concluded that, based on the evidence of pre-existing right ear hearing loss upon entering service, no evidence of shift in hearing in either ear during active duty, the probability of noise exposure after leaving service, and no complaint of tinnitus in his STRs, his tinnitus was less likely than not caused by in-service noise exposure. Nonetheless, the Board finds that the rationale provided by the examiner was largely focused on the etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss and he did not explain whether his tinnitus was related to in-service noise exposure independent of hearing loss. Furthermore, the Board finds that the Veteran's reports of the onset of his current tinnitus during active duty and the continuity of symptomatology thereafter to be competent and credible. Specifically, during his September 2018 VA examination, he reported that his tinnitus had its onset in 1973. Additionally, he testified that his tinnitus had its onset in service, which was prior to his post-service noise exposure, and continued ever since his discharge. In this regard, when a claim involves a diagnosis based on purely subjective complaints, the Board is within its province to weigh the Veteran's testimony and determine whether it supports a finding of service incurrence and continued symptoms since service. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 305 (2007); Charles, supra. Thus, the Board resolves all doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that his currently diagnosed tinnitus had its onset during his active duty service. Therefore, service connection for such disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Clark 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.