Citation Nr: A25035191 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 240916-473946 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus that was incurred in or caused by service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 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 in the United States Army from November 2004 until his honorable discharge in November 2014. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2024 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In September 2023, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a September 5, 2023, rating decision. In January 2024, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior September 2023 rating decision. In the September 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2023 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran seeks service connection for tinnitus, which he asserts was caused by in-service noise exposure. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, to prove service connection there must be: (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). Moreover, where a veteran has served continuously for 90 days or more during a period of war, or during peacetime service after December 31, 1946, and tinnitus becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Service treatment records are silent for complaints of or treatment for tinnitus. The Veteran underwent VA Hearing Loss and Tinnitus examinations in May and July 2023 conducted by the same examiner. During the May 2023 VA examination, the Veteran reported ringing in both ears at the same time, with louder ringing in the right ear. During the July 2023 VA examination, the Veteran reported ringing in one ear at a time, occasionally in both, but more frequently in the right ear. The examiner noted that the Veteran described the sound as a loud tone like a generator squealing, once to twice weekly, lasting between fifteen seconds and one and a half minutes. The examiner explained that the Veteran reports transient ear noise that occurs in the general population without auditory damage or pathology, and that his description of symptoms does not meet the definition of tinnitus as defined by medical literature. As such, the examiner concluded that this transient ear noise is not consistent with noise-induced tinnitus and is less likely than not related to military noise exposure. There is no competent opinion to the contrary and VA treatment records are absent complaints or a diagnosis of tinnitus. Although the Veteran believes that he experiences tinnitus that is related to service, as a lay person, he has not shown that she has specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of tinnitus, the etiology of tinnitus requires medical expertise to determine. Thus, the opinion of the Veteran regarding the etiology of his claimed tinnitus is not competent medical evidence. In sum, the Board concludes that the most probative evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has a diagnosis of tinnitus that was incurred in or caused by service. Accordingly, the claim for service connection is denied. (Continued on the next page) ? In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine; however, as the competing evidence is not in approximate balance, the doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Lance, 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.