Citation Nr: A26005299 Decision Date: 01/21/26 Archive Date: 01/21/26 DOCKET NO. 200610-96878 DATE: January 21, 2026 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss, having been withdrawn, is dismissed. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no case or controversy within the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) jurisdiction regarding service connection for bilateral hearing loss as the claim on appeal has been withdrawn. 2. The evidence shows a current disability of tinnitus. 3. The Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during service. 4. Symptoms of tinnitus were chronic in service and continuous since service separation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of the appeal for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for chronic disease presumptive service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty from August 2000 to August 2004. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a June 2019 rating decision, issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In the June 2020 VA Form 10182, the Veteran timely appealed the rating decision to the Board by requesting the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on June 27, 2024 and a copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the record; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2019 rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss, having been withdrawn, is dismissed. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. A substantive appeal may be withdrawn or on record at a hearing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. Withdrawal may be made by a veteran or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. At the June 27, 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran (accompanied by a representative) withdrew the appeal for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. At the time, the issue was on appeal to the Board awaiting a decision. As the Veteran has withdrawn the appeal regarding service connection for bilateral hearing loss, there remain no allegations of error of fact or law for appellate consideration. As the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the issue, the appeal as to service connection for bilateral hearing loss will be dismissed. 2. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. The Veteran appeals for service connection for tinnitus, contending that the tinnitus onset during service due to the military occupational specialty of engineman and consistent exposure to acoustic trauma. Types of noise exposure included noise from operating diesel engines, high pressure compressors, and heavy machinery, and also working in engine shaft rooms, alongside jet engines on the flight deck, and near boilers. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service, or proximately caused or aggravated by service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service-the so-called "nexus" requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When there is an approximate balance of evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the Board gives the veteran the benefit of the doubt in resolving the issue. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (2021) (en banc); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Where the evidence shows a "chronic disease" such as "chronic" symptoms of tinnitus in service or "continuity of symptoms" after service, the disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service. For the showing of "chronic" disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. With chronic disease as such in service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of "continuity of symptoms" after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Additionally, where a veteran served 90 days or more of active service, and certain chronic diseases, such as tinnitus, become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year after the date of separation from 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. While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumption period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the persuasive weight of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th at 781-82 (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). The evidence in this case shows a current disability of tinnitus. See May 2019 VA Examination. In the June 2019 rating decision, the AOJ made the favorable finding that there is a current tinnitus disability. Tinnitus is a disorder that is capable of lay observation, and the Veteran is competent to describe symptoms of such. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002). The evidence also shows loud noise exposure during service. The AOJ made the favorable finding that the military occupational specialty of engineman has a high probability of hazardous noise exposure. See June 2019 Rating Decision. Pursuant to the AMA, the Board is bound by such favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c), 20.801. The reports of noise exposure are consistent with the circumstances of the Veteran's service. See DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) (due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of each veteran's service). After a review of the lay and medical evidence in this case, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise on the questions of whether there were "chronic" symptoms of tinnitus during service and "continuous" symptoms of tinnitus after service. On the questions of whether symptoms of tinnitus began during service and have been continuous since service separation, the Veteran has provided credible lay statements of an onset of tinnitus during service, specifically a humming noise that was first noticed, became constant, and then worsened over the years. During the Board hearing, the Veteran clarified that lay statements made during the May 2019 VA examination reflect that the tinnitus became significantly worse in the two or three years prior and began to negatively impact his life. Because the Board has found the evidence in relative equipoise on the questions of "chronic" symptoms of tinnitus during service and "continuous" post-service symptoms of tinnitus, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that "chronic disease" presumptive service connection is warranted for tinnitus under 38 U.S.C. § 1112 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The grant of chronic disease presumptive service connection for tinnitus renders moot all other theories of service connection, including direct or secondary service connection. This obviates the need for the Board to address the negative VA nexus opinion that relates to the question of direct nexus between tinnitus and in-service acoustic trauma. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Prairie, N. R. 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.