MALIGNANT NEOPLASMS OF THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

MICHAEL A. HERMAN · 2026 · Case ID: A26032841

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Navy from December 1975 to December 1979, appeals the denial of service connection for left ear hearing loss and seeks service connection for several other conditions. The veteran claimed thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis, splenic calcified granuloma, hepatic calcified granuloma, calcified pleural granuloma, right ear hearing loss, and tinnitus, attributing them to toxic environmental exposures, including ionizing radiation and noise, during his naval service as a diver and cook. The Board reviewed medical opinions from Dr. D.M., a podiatric physician, and Dr. J.W.C., Jr., a family medicine physician, which linked the thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis, and granulomas to radiation and toxic exposures during service. These opinions were found more probative than a VA advisory opinion that downplayed the significance of the veteran's radiation exposure due to his diver duties and the location of his dosimeter. The Board granted service connection for thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis, splenic, hepatic, and pleural granulomas. For hearing loss and tinnitus, the Board found the veteran had a diagnosis for tinnitus and right ear hearing loss, but denied left ear hearing loss due to failure to meet diagnostic thresholds. While a VA examination found the right ear hearing loss less likely than not related to service, the Board found this opinion inadequate. Dr. D.M.'s opinion, attributing the hearing loss to barotrauma and noise exposure, was found sufficient to grant service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus.

Rationale

Medical opinions from Dr. D.M. and Dr. J.W.C., Jr. found link to radiation and toxic exposures.; Dr. D.M. cited studies correlating granulomas and autoimmune diseases with environmental triggers.; Dr. J.W.C., Jr. noted thymoma with calcification indicates long-term growth and is associated with radiation exposure.

Service Branch

NAVY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

200902-107756

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26032841
Decision Date: 04/09/26 Archive Date: 04/09/26

DOCKET NO. 200902-107756
DATE: April 9, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for thymoma is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for thyroid nodule is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for Myasthenia gravis is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for splenic calcified granuloma is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for hepatic calcified granuloma is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for calcified pleural granuloma is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis, splenic calcified granuloma, hepatic calcified granuloma, and calcified pleural granuloma are related to toxic environmental exposures causing immune modulation during active naval service.

2. The Veteran's right ear hearing loss is due to complications from medication used to treat his service-connected Myasthenia gravis.

3. The Veteran does not have left ear hearing loss for VA purposes.

4. Tinnitus is due to noise exposure during active service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for thymoma are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for thyroid nodule are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for Myasthenia gravis are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for splenic calcified granuloma are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for hepatic calcified granuloma are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for calcified pleural granulomas are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for service connection for right ear hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

8. The criteria for service connection for left ear hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

9. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active naval service from December 1975 to December 1979.

The instant matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2020 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran requested Board review of that rating decision by submitting a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) in September 2020. The Veteran elected review on the Board's Hearing docket.

The Veteran testified in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge on July 26, 2024. A transcript of the hearing is included in the claims file. As a result of the Veteran's docket election, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of January 2020 rating decision on appeal as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the
2020 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran requested Board review of that rating decision by submitting a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) in September 2020. The Veteran elected review on the Board's Hearing docket.

The Veteran testified in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge on July 26, 2024. A transcript of the hearing is included in the claims file. As a result of the Veteran's docket election, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of January 2020 rating decision on appeal as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing, or October 24, 2024. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). Evidence was received during this period.

Evidence of record specifically identified by the Veteran or his representative in his July 26, 2024, hearing is also considered "submitted" during the evidence submission window. See Cash v. Collins, No. 2024-1811, __ F.4th __, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3596 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 5, 2026).

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Service Connection

Generally, service connection may be granted on a direct basis for a 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).

Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc); Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (invalidating the requirement of "proximate cause" and instead held a "but for" causation or aggravation is enough to show entitlement to secondary service connection). Compensation may be established for any incremental increase in disability or any additional impairment of earning capacity in nonservice-connected disabilities resulting from service-connected disabilities, above the degree of disability existing before the increase regardless of its permanence. Ward v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 233, 239 (2019).

Certain chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system, are subject to presumptive service connection if they manifest to a compensable degree within one year from separation from 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. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). Hearing loss and tinnitus qualify as chronic diseases, as they are considered an organic disease of the nervous system. See Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 260 (2015).

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), an alternative method of establishing the second and third Shedden elements is through a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology if the disability claimed qualifies as a chronic disease listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013). As hearing loss and tinnitus are chronic diseases, service connection via the demonstration of continuity of symptomatology is applicable.

1. Entitlement to service connection for thymoma, thyroid n
. See Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 260 (2015).

1. Entitlement to service connection for thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis, and splenic, hepatic and pleural granulomas

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a cascade of disorders due to exposures ionizing radiation and toxins during active naval service. As Dr. D.M. stated in an August 2024 independent medical opinion, which was received on October 24, 2024, the etiology of the Veteran's thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis and granulomas is "very complex" and "the pathophysiology" for the Veteran's conditions necessitates an examination of "the totality of [the Veteran's] medical profile" because his conditions "have strong medical correlations." Focusing on a single disorder would obscure the etiological relationship shared by his conditions, and it is clear, "given the pathophysiology of [the Veteran's] conditions, . . . that they share a common etiology premised upon environmental triggers and immune modulation." Accordingly, the Board will address these six claims under a single heading.

The first two criteria for service connection are met for the six conditions addressed under this heading. June 2018 private treatment records provide a history of the diagnosis and surgical removal of a stage II thymoma in April 2018. April 2018 private treatment records also include diagnoses for Myasthenia gravis, pleural granuloma, hepatic granuloma, and splenic granuloma. A diagnosis for thyroid nodule is shown in April 2018 private treatment records as well. The first criteria for service connection is met.

With respect to the second requirement for service connection, the Veteran's DD 214 identified his specialty during naval service as service supply handler. The Veteran's testimony also noted that he was a cook or baker during service. He further testified that his duties during active naval service included activities beyond those typically associated with these specialties. He testified that he was a diver responsible for certain types of submarine hull inspections. With a six-foot "buddy line" connecting him to another diver, the Veteran stated that he would sweep the hull of the submarine of anything that "was not supposed to be on the hull." The Veteran's hearing testimony describes aspects of diving around the submarines in some detail, including to gear that he would use, the need for wetsuits due to water temperature, balancing gases in the gear to achieve positive, negative, or neutral buoyancy, proximity to the other diver-fingertip to fingertip-and how closely the tie lines kept them to the hull of the submarines. The Veteran testified that his dives included swims in the Thames River, which separates New London, Connecticut and Groton, Connecticut. The Veteran is competent to report events during active service of which he has firsthand knowledge, and the Veteran's hearing testimony is competent, credible, and probative evidence regarding the Veteran's duties as diver during active service.

The record supports the Veteran's hearing testimony. The Board observes that the Veteran's DD 214 includes the notation that the Veteran completed Scuba School at New London/Groton, Connecticut in June 1978. The Veteran identified the U.S.S. Shark as the submarine for which he was a diver. His service personnel records show service on the U.S.S. Shark in 1978 and 1979. This corroborates and strengthens the probative value of the Veteran's October 2024 hearing testimony.

The Board concludes that the second requirement for service connection on a direct basis is met. The record shows that the Veteran was a diver during naval service and that those duties involved swims to inspect the U.S.S. Shark while it was docked in the Thames River in New London and Groton, Connecticut. The record also shows that the Veteran had service in San Diego, California during the early years of his active service from April 1976 to June 1976. The Veteran also served on another nuclear-powered submarine, the U.S.S. Stonewall Jackson.

With the first two requirements for service connection on a direct basis met, the question
and strengthens the probative value of the Veteran's October 2024 hearing testimony.

With the first two requirements for service connection on a direct basis met, the question is whether the Veteran's thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis, and calcified granulomas are due to his active service.

The record includes a December 2018 letter from the Veteran's family medicine physician, Dr. J.W.C., Jr. He concluded that the Veteran's thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis, and calcified pleural, hepatic, and splenic granulomas were a least as likely as not due to the Veteran's active service, particularly his exposure to ionizing radiation as a submariner and diver. Dr. J.W.C., Jr. reasoned that ionizing radiation damages DNA and induces alterations to normal immune functioning. Radiation has been shown to cause thymoma in mouse studies, and the incidence of thyroid cancers/nodules is higher in populations exposed to ionizing radiation. Applying these findings to the specifics of the Veteran's case, Dr. J.W.C., Jr., noted that thymoma with calcification is indicative of long-term growth, and resulted in the development of a large thyroid nodule, and calcified granulomas. Dr. J.W.C., Jr., noting that the Veteran did not have any other known risk factors in his personal life or his career, concluded that thymoma, thyroid nodule, granulomas, and Myasthenia gravis was caused by the Veteran's exposure to radiation during active naval service.

Dr. J.W.C.'s opinion is probative. It is based on a thorough understanding of the onset and progression of the Veteran's disorders, references research regarding the causes and progression of the Veteran's disorders, applies those findings to the specifics of the Veteran's case, and is supported by a rationale. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The third requirement for service connection is met for thymoma, thyroid nodule, granulomas, and Myasthenia gravis.

The record also includes the previously referenced report from Dr. D.M., a doctor of podiatric medicine (DPM), in which he concludes that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's thymoma, thyroid nodule, Myasthenia gravis, and granulomas "are intertwined and share a common etiology premised upon military environmental-chemical-carcinogenic triggers which induced inflammatory responses and immune modulation resulting in the claimed conditions-which are all forms of autoimmune disease." Dr. D.M.'s opinion is thoroughly supported a well-reasoned rationale.

With respect to thymoma, Dr. D.M. states that the exact cause is not known to medical science; however, it is shown to be associated with ironizing radiation exposure. This accords with Dr. J.W.C's opinion. Dr. D.M. also attributed thymoma to an altered immune response caused by the Veteran's exposure to environmental toxins.

With respect to granulomas, Dr. D.M.'s report references a study from Frontiers in Immunology that explains the correlation between the formation of granulomas and the body's inability to eliminate foreign bodies. Essentially, granulomas form as an immunological and inflammatory response to chronic irritants. Dr. D.M. cites another study showing that granulomas form in response to geographic location and occupation. Dr. D.M. then associates these studies to the specifics of the Veteran's claims in concluding that his plural granulomas, hepatic granulomas, and splenic granulomas are due to autoimmune and inflammatory responses to toxic exposures during the Veteran's active service in San Diego and Connecticut. Dr. D.M. summarizes governmental studies regarding military and industrial contamination in San Diego and the Thames River in New London and Groton, Connecticut, and reasons that those exposures are associated with the hepatic, splenic, and pleural granulomas.

Dr. D.M. also reasoned that Myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disorder characterized by periodic skeletal muscle weakness, is frequently found in persons
geographic location and occupation. Dr. D.M. then associates these studies to the specifics of the Veteran's claims in concluding that his plural granulomas, hepatic granulomas, and splenic granulomas are due to autoimmune and inflammatory responses to toxic exposures during the Veteran's active service in San Diego and Connecticut. Dr. D.M. summarizes governmental studies regarding military and industrial contamination in San Diego and the Thames River in New London and Groton, Connecticut, and reasons that those exposures are associated with the hepatic, splenic, and pleural granulomas.

Dr. D.M. also reasoned that Myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disorder characterized by periodic skeletal muscle weakness, is frequently found in persons with thyroid disorders. While the scientific literature shows some genetic involvement with Myasthenia gravis, it requires a trigger from the environment to cause the disease. According to scientific literature quoted by Dr. D.M., Myasthenia gravis is the result of an abnormal immune reaction in which the body's immune defenses attack certain proteins in the muscles that receive nerve impulses. Dr. D.M. attributed Myasthenia gravis to the Veteran's exposures during active naval service and indicated that Myasthenia gravis is frequently found in persons with thymoma and thyroid disorders. This, according to Dr. D.M., reinforces the etiological relationship between Myasthenia gravis and the environmental exposures during active service responsible for the Veteran's autoimmune response.

Dr. D.M. also included in his report that the Veteran does not have risk factors outside of his active service. He is a life-long non-smoker. Given the absence of other known risk factors, Dr. D.M. reasoned that environmental exposures during naval service in San Diego and Connecticut were the most likely cause.

While a DPM may not be a medical doctor (MD) in the most formal sense, a DPM is still a physician with four years of medical school training and at least three years of hospital residency. Dr. D.M.'s opinion is thereby probative. It is based on a review of the claims file, shows a familiarity with the Veteran's medical history, addresses potential risk factors, and cites medical literature and environmental studies that are then applied to the specific facts of the Veteran's claims. See Nieves-Rodriguez. 22 Vet. App. at 304.

The record also includes a January 8, 2020, advisory opinion from the Director, Compensation Service, concluding that there is no reasonable possibility that the Veteran's thyroid nodule and thymoma are a result of exposure to ionizing radiation during service. The advisory opinion addresses the Veteran's measured exposure to ionizing radiation during active service based on what is shown in DD Forms 1141, Record of Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. The Advisory Opinion, reference the United States Navy, noted that the annual total effective dose equivalent limit (TEDE) is 5 rem annually, and that the Veteran's dosimeter showed that the Veteran had only a small fraction of this allowable limit.

The Board makes two observations regarding factors that weaken the probative value of the advisory opinion. First, it does not reference the Veteran's duties as a diver or how the Veteran's dives during active service could have involved added exposure to ionizing radiation or other forms of environmental contamination. Moreover, the Veteran's July 2024 hearing testimony discusses how his lead diving weight belt covered his dosimeter. The record also includes photographs. One shows the Veteran during service with the dosimeter on his belt. The second shows him wearing a weight belt similar to what he wore in service. The location of the weight belt would have covered the dosimeter. This raises the possibility that any acute exposures to radiation during dives would not have been captured on the Veteran's dosimeter. This consideration of additional possible exposures to ionizing radiation during active service is not addressed in the January 2020 advisory opinion.

Second, the Advisory Opinion does not address any of the environmental exposures raised by Dr. D.M.'s report. No consideration was given to whether environmental exposures during active service could be etiologically related to the diseases and conditions for which the Veteran is seeking service connection.

For these reasons, taken together, the Board affords Dr. JW.C., Jr.'s and Dr. D.M.'s opinions more probative weight than the January 2020 Advisory Opinion. They more fulsomely address the evidence of record regarding exposure to ionizing radiation associated with the Veteran's duties as a diver, and Dr. D.M. addresses other environmental exposures during active naval service.

In light of the foregoing, the third requirement for service connection for thymoma, thyroid nodule, splenic calcified granuloma, hepatic calcified granuloma, pleural calc
to whether environmental exposures during active service could be etiologically related to the diseases and conditions for which the Veteran is seeking service connection.

In light of the foregoing, the third requirement for service connection for thymoma, thyroid nodule, splenic calcified granuloma, hepatic calcified granuloma, pleural calcified granuloma, and Myasthenia gravis, is met. Service connection for these six conditions is granted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss

3. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for tinnitus and hearing loss due to his active naval service.

With respect to the first requirement for a diagnosis, the record does not show that the Veteran has hearing loss for VA purposes in his left ear. Impaired loss constitutes a disorder for purposes of disability compensation benefits administered by VA when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. On the authorized audiological evaluation in August 2019, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

LEFT 15 10 10 15 35

Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in the left ear.

On the authorized audiological evaluation in April 2019, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

LEFT 0 10 5 5 35

Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in the left ear.

Thus, the Veteran's left ear hearing acuity failed to meet the auditory thresholds needed to find a diagnosis for impaired hearing for VA purposes. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). Congress has specifically limited entitlement to disability compensation benefits where it is shown that a veteran has a disability, and service connection is not warranted unless there is a present disability for which compensation can be paid. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). At the core of service connection is functional impairment, which can be a disability even if there is no underlying diagnosis. Accordingly, service connection for left ear hearing loss must be denied.

However, the record shows a diagnosis for tinnitus documented in an April 2019 VA examination that includes the Veteran's reports that tinnitus onset 20 years prior. The record also shows hearing loss for VA purposes in the Veteran's right ear based on the April 2019 VA audiological examination. The Veteran's auditory threshold at 4000 Hertz was 40 decibels. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In addition, the AOJ, in the January 2020 rating decision favorably found that the Veteran has diagnoses tinnitus and right ear hearing loss for VA purposes. These two findings are not clearly erroneous and are, therefore, binding on the Board. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.385.

With respect to the second requirement, the Board concludes that the Veteran's active service, which included service as a submariner, included acoustic trauma. The second requirement for service connection is met.

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran's right ear hearing loss and tinnitus are due to his in-service noise exposure. The examiner responsible for the April 2019 VA audiological examination concluded that right ear hearing loss was less likely than not due to the Veteran's active service. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran's hearing was normal upon entry. While the record does not include a separation examination, the examiner nonetheless noted that no threshold shift was observed during active service. According to the examiner, this would represent objective evidence of hearing loss during active service. As this was not shown, the examiner concluded that hearing loss of the right ear was not due to service. Given the absence of a separation examination in the record, there is no basis for the examiner's conclusion that the Veteran did not experience a threshold shift in his right ear hearing during active service. Thus, the April 2019 VA opinion is inadequate, and the Board affords it no probative weight. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007).

Dr. D.M. concluded that right ear hearing loss was due to exposure to engine noise during active service. He also reasoned that hearing loss was due to barotrauma from pressurization experienced during diving. He noted that a physician's guide explains that otic barotrauma is a type of ear pain or damage to the tympanic membrane caused by rapid changes in environmental pressure. Dr. D.M.'s rationale is not particularly robust; however, it is sufficient to support his opinion that the Veteran's active service caused his current right ear hearing loss. Absent other adequate, probative evidence of record, the Board finds that the third criteria for service connection for right ear hearing loss is met. Thus, service connection for right ear hearing loss is granted.

As to tinnitus, Dr. D.M. noted that tinnitus was due to the Veteran's noise exposure during active service. He also noted that previous exposure to loud noises or acoustic trauma made the Veteran more vulnerable to trauma. Dr. D.M. further noted that the same exposures discussed above can cause tinnitus. He cites data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that workplace environmental exposures similar to those the Veteran experienced during active service can contribute to audiological symptoms. Dr. D.M. also cited a study from an audiologist discussing ototoxicity as a cause for tinnitus. Dr. D.M.'s opinion addressing tinnitus is probative. It is based on a review of the Veteran's record, addresses noise exposure and toxin exposure during active service, and cites pertinent medical literature finding causal relationships between toxin exposure and tinnitus that he applied to the Veteran's tinnitus. Thus, the third requirement for service connection for tinnitus is met.

Accordingly, the Board concludes that right ear hearing loss and tinnitus are due to noise exposure during active service. The third requirement for service connection is met and service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus is granted.

MICHAEL A. HERMAN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Douglas M. Humphrey, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer