Same noise, two outcomes: the Board grants tinnitus about twice as often as hearing loss, in every occupation

Tinnitus and hearing loss usually come from the same in-service noise. At the Board of Veterans' Appeals, they do not end the same way. In every one of the 13 occupations with at least 200 recorded outcomes for each condition, tinnitus was granted between 1.8 times and 2.3 times as often as hearing loss.

Among infantry veterans, the largest group, the Board granted tinnitus in 63.1% of records and hearing loss in 30.3%. Among aircraft mechanics, the figures were 63.8% and 35.4%. Among cooks, the lowest for both conditions, they were 47.7% and 21.1%. Across all 13 jobs, tinnitus grant shares ran from 47.7% to 67.9%. Hearing loss never got above 35.4%.

TinnitusHearing loss

Administrative Specialist

52.5%

22.6%

Aircraft Mechanic (Fixed-Wing General)

63.8%

35.4%

Armor / Tank Crewman

64.9%

34.6%

Cannon Crew / Field Artillery

62.9%

32.6%

Combat Engineer / Sapper

62.4%

29.1%

Cook / Culinary Specialist

47.7%

21.1%

Infantry (Rifleman)

63.1%

30.3%

Medic / Hospital Corpsman / Medical Specialist

55.2%

28.8%

Military Police / Security Forces

61.0%

29.2%

Motor Transport Operator

54.5%

26.0%

Radio Operator / Communications

58.0%

29.3%

Supply Specialist

53.6%

28.4%

Vehicle / Wheel Mechanic

67.9%

29.2%

Granted records as a share of all recorded outcomes, remands included. Occupations with at least 200 records for each condition.

Hearing loss is denied more and remanded more

The gap is not only about grants. Take the infantry group. The Board denied hearing loss in 33.7% of records and tinnitus in 18.8%. It remanded hearing loss in 36.0% and tinnitus in 18.2%. When the Board reached the merits instead of remanding, it granted tinnitus 77.1% of the time and hearing loss 47.3%.

TinnitusHearing loss

Granted

63.1%

30.3%

Denied

18.8%

33.7%

Remanded

18.2%

36.0%

Share of recorded outcomes in the infantry group, the largest in the data.

The remand pattern holds across jobs. Hearing loss remand shares ran from 30.0% to 39.2% of records. Tinnitus remand shares ran from 11.6% to 20.1%. A remand usually means the record lacked an adequate exam or opinion, so a hearing loss claim was about twice as likely to be sent back for more development.

What the rules say

The data does not say why. The rules offer a reason worth checking. Hearing loss counts as a disability for VA purposes only when an audiogram meets the thresholds in 38 CFR 3.385. Tinnitus has no such test. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held in Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002), that ringing in the ears is a condition a veteran can identify without medical training. So a tinnitus claim can rest on the veteran's own account of noise exposure and symptoms, while a hearing loss claim needs an audiogram that clears the thresholds, and usually an opinion that ties the loss to service.

Individual decisions show the same evidence being weighed differently for each condition:

• 19101054, granted: the Board found the evidence for and against both hearing loss and tinnitus at least in equipoise after crediting the veteran's reports of symptoms and weighing the adequacy of the unfavorable opinion.
• 19100828, denied: the veteran reported in-service noise from aircraft but also decades of post-service noise as a pipe fitter, and the decision turned on that history, the reported onset and the nexus opinion.
• 19103285, remanded: a favorable opinion on hearing loss gave no rationale, so the Board sent the claim back for an addendum addressing the audiogram.

These are aircraft-mechanic decisions from the full Explorer corpus, read in full. They illustrate the questions; they do not explain the gap. Read the verified excerpts beside the aircraft-mechanic condition data.

For representatives

• Check the audiogram first. If the puretone thresholds or the Maryland CNC score do not meet 38 CFR 3.385, there is no hearing loss disability to connect, whatever the noise history. A denial of hearing loss next to a grant of tinnitus often turns on this.
• A tinnitus grant can support the hearing loss claim. The same exposure and the same onset account are already in the record. Ask the examiner to address them for hearing loss too, including delayed onset.
• Get the rationale in writing. Hearing loss was remanded about twice as often as tinnitus, and the remand example above was for a favorable opinion with no reasoning. An opinion that states its reasons and cites the audiogram is the one the Board can act on.

What this data can't tell you

The counts come from a separate occupation-history extract, not from a search of the full Explorer corpus, and its totals differ from such a search. Each count is a recorded outcome, not a veteran, and the same veteran can appear in more than one occupation or condition, so the rows cannot be added. The extract does not separate service connection from rating claims, does not control for year or evidence, and does not come with a decision-date range. Nothing here shows that a job caused a condition or that the Board accepted it as the reason for a grant. Download the comparison data, methods and source queries.