TINNITUS

JOHN J. CROWLEY · 2026 · Case ID: A26033382

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from October 2015 to February 2016, appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus, back disability, left leg disability, left knee disability, and hypertension. The Board found that for tinnitus, while the veteran had a current diagnosis and an infantry MOS with probable hazardous noise exposure, the VA examiner concluded that four months of training noise exposure would not cause tinnitus nearly a decade later, and the evidence weighed against service connection. For the back and left leg claims, the Board found the veteran failed to establish the first element of a current disability, as no medical evidence or diagnosis supported these conditions, and thus the duty to assist was not triggered. For the left knee claim, the Board acknowledged a current diagnosis of left knee strain (though not the claimed hyperextension) but gave greater weight to the VA examiner's opinion that the strain was less likely than not due to service. For hypertension, the Board found a current diagnosis but gave greater weight to the VA examiner's opinion that it was less likely than not due to service, noting the absence of any in-service complaints or diagnoses in the service treatment records. The Board denied all claims, finding the evidence weighed against service connection and was not in approximate balance to warrant the benefit of the doubt.

Rationale

No in-service complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of tinnitus.; Post-service treatment records show no complaints until claim submission nearly 10 years after service.; VA examiner found four months of training noise exposure insufficient to cause current tinnitus.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

251125-608895

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26033382
Decision Date: 04/10/26 Archive Date: 04/10/26

DOCKET NO. 251125-608895
DATE: April 10, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Veteran's tinnitus was not incurred during his military service nor is otherwise due to his service.

2. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a back disability.

3. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a left leg disability.

4. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Veteran's left knee strain was not incurred during his active military service or otherwise related to his military service.

5. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Veteran's hypertension was not incurred during his active military service nor is otherwise related to his service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus, back, left knee, left leg, and hypertension disabilities have not been 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 service from October 2015 to February 2016.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2024 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO), Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In the November 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2024 decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or representative] with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

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 claim[s], 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

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F. 3rd 1391 (2021).

1. Entitlement to service connection
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.

The Veteran asserts that his tinnitus is due to his military service.

First, under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings by the AOJ in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c). In the December 2024 rating decision, the AOJ made a favorable finding that the Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus and that his military occupational specialty (MOS) of infantryman has a high probability of hazardous noise exposure.

For direct service connection, the Board finds the Veteran has met the first two elements because he has a current disability of tinnitus and his MOS as infantryman has a high probability of hazardous noise exposure.

The question before the Board is whether the Veteran's current tinnitus is related to his four months of military service.

In this case, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) reflect evidence of no complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of tinnitus or any hearing problems.

Post-service, the Veteran's treatment record reflects evidence of no complaints, treatment or diagnosis of tinnitus until nearly 10 years after service when he submitted his claim for tinnitus.

In August 2024, the Veteran underwent a VA examination for his tinnitus. He reported that during his four months of service he was exposed to pistol, grenade, rifle, and machine gun noise. He also reported that his tinnitus began in 2015 and was exposed to hazardous noise with no ear protection for eight hours and could not hear for two days. The examiner noted his 2015 entrance examination which indicates normal hearing. However, the examiner noted there is no separation examination. The VA examiner concluded that four months in training near probable hazardous noise would not result in his current tinnitus and that it is less likely than not related to his military service.

The Board finds the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim and gives the greater weight to the VA examiner. After examining the Veteran, reviewing the record, and considering his lay reports, the examiner concluded four months of training as an infantryman would not cause his tinnitus nearly a decade later. Although the Veteran reported eight hours in Basic Training of being on a shooting range with no ear protection, the examiner found that even four months would not cause his tinnitus nearly 10 years later. The Veteran also argues that he did not have ear protection. However, the Veteran's record reflects evidence of no such withholding of ear protection during his basic training. Therefore, the Board finds service connection is not warranted for his tinnitus.

Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied.

The evidence in this case is not in approximate balance to warrant application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability.

3. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability.

The Veteran asserts that he has a back and left leg disability.

In this case, the Board finds the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a back disability or a left leg disability.

For service connection, the Veteran must meet the first element of a current disability. The Veteran's STRs reflect no evidence of a back disability or a left leg disability.

The Board notes the Veteran did not have a VA examination for his back. VA has a duty to provide an examination when the record lacks evidence to decide the Veteran's claim, and there is evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service event, injury, or disease; and (3) some indication that the claimed disability may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease. Id.; see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). The record does not contain evidence of an in-service injury to the back. The record, accordingly, has not triggered the duty to provide an examination. See Waters v. Shinseki,
notes the Veteran did not have a VA examination for his back. VA has a duty to provide an examination when the record lacks evidence to decide the Veteran's claim, and there is evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service event, injury, or disease; and (3) some indication that the claimed disability may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease. Id.; see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). The record does not contain evidence of an in-service injury to the back. The record, accordingly, has not triggered the duty to provide an examination. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F. 3d 1274, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that something more than a Veteran's conclusory, generalized statement is needed to trigger VA's duty to assist by providing a medical nexus examination).

In this case, for the back disability claim, the Board finds the Veteran has not met the first element by showing he has a current back disability. There are no STRs or post-service treatment records reflecting a back disability so there was no duty to assist error by the AOJ in not providing a VA back examination. Therefore, service connection is not warranted.

Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied.

The Veteran submitted a July 2024 claim for bilateral stress fractures in his legs. He underwent a September 2024 VA Knee and Lower Leg examination. The examiner indicated no such left leg stress fracture nor indicated any tibial or fibular impairment and no shin splints. No diagnosis was made of a left leg stress fracture. During the examination, the Veteran made no report or mention of a left leg stress fracture. Therefore, the first element for service connection has not been met as the Veteran has no current disability of his left leg.

Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is denied.

The evidence in these two claims are not in approximate balance to warrant application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

4. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability.

The Veteran asserts that his left knee hyperextension disability was incurred during his military service.

In this case, the favorable findings made by the AOJ in the December 2024 rating decision are that the Veteran has a current left knee strain. The Board is bound by favorable findings by the AOJ in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c). See also, September 2024 VA Knee and Lower Leg examination.

The Veteran underwent a September 2024 VA Knee and Lower Leg examination. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a left knee strain. He reported that his left knee began hurting during boot camp and continued to worsen the four months of his service. He reported that he cannot bend down to pick up objects off the ground, has difficulty with standing, sitting or walking for extended periods without causing severe pain and tightness in the knee, and his knee regularly tightens causing inability to regain flexibility and some range of motion without severe pain. He also reported weekly flareups lasting from 30 minutes to all day causing an inability to squat or bend and difficulty walking up and down stairs. Although the Veteran reported pain in his left knee, the examiner found no muscle atrophy, instability, tibial or fibular impairment and pertinent to his July 2024 VA Form 21-526EZ claim, there was no diagnosis of left knee hyperextension. The examiner concluded it was less likely than not that his disability of left knee strain was due to his military service.

The Board finds the weight of the evidence against the Veteran's claim. The Veteran submitted a claim for left knee hyperextension, but upon examination there was no diagnosis of such a disability. However, because of pain of his left knee, he was diagnosed with a left knee strain. The examiner concluded it was less likely than not that his current left knee strain was due to his military service nearly a decade ago. The Board gives great weight to the VA examiner who examined the Veteran and reviewed his record and finds service connection is not warranted.

Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied.

The evidence in this case is not in approximate balance to warrant application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

5. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.

The Veteran asserts that
However, because of pain of his left knee, he was diagnosed with a left knee strain. The examiner concluded it was less likely than not that his current left knee strain was due to his military service nearly a decade ago. The Board gives great weight to the VA examiner who examined the Veteran and reviewed his record and finds service connection is not warranted.

Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied.

The evidence in this case is not in approximate balance to warrant application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

5. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.

The Veteran asserts that his current hypertension is due to his military service.

Here, the AOJ found favorably that the Veteran has a current disability of hypertension. See December 2024 rating decision.

For service connection, the Board finds the Veteran has met the first element because he has a current hypertension disability. See September 2024 VA Hypertension examination.

Service treatment records (STRs) reflect evidence of no complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of hypertension.

The Veteran underwent a September 2024 VA Hypertension Examination. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with hypertension. The Veteran reported he took medication and had been diagnosed in 2021. The examiner concluded it was less likely than not that his current hypertension was due to his military service. The examiner also noted that his STRs could not substantiate hypertension during his service.

The Board finds the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim and great weight is given to the VA examiner's opinion. The Veteran's STRs from nearly 10 years ago reflect evidence of no complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of hypertension. Post-service evidence reflects no treatment, or diagnosis of hypertension, and while the Veteran reported he was diagnosed in 2021, the evidence reflects no diagnosis until his VA examination in September 2024. The VA examiner concluded it was less likely than not that his current hypertension was incurred during his four months of military service. Therefore, service connection is not warranted.

Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

The evidence in this case is not in approximate balance to warrant application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

John J. Crowley

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Raborn, S.

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