TINNITUS

CHRISTOPHER SEPPANEN · 2026 · Case ID: A26034970

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Navy from September 1986 to September 1990, appeals the denial of service connection for a neck disability and migraines, and the grant of service connection for tinnitus. The Board granted service connection for tinnitus, finding the veteran competent to establish the onset and continuity of his tinnitus based on his lay testimony of experiencing ringing in his ears during service due to noise exposure in machinery spaces and on an aircraft carrier. Despite a negative VA medical opinion, the Board found the veteran's testimony credible and applied the benefit of the doubt. Service connection for a neck disability was denied, as the Board found the evidence weighed against a service connection. While the veteran claimed an in-service head/neck injury, service treatment records did not corroborate this, and the Board found the veteran's recollection of the etiology unreliable. The claim for migraines was denied because the Board concluded the veteran did not have a current diagnosis, and the issue was medically complex, requiring specialized knowledge beyond the veteran's competency. The claim for a right eye disability was remanded for a new VA examination to determine the nexus between an in-service chemical conjunctivitis and the current right eye conditions.

Rationale

Veteran competent to establish onset and continuity of tinnitus; Credible lay testimony regarding noise exposure and tinnitus onset; Benefit of the doubt applied due to approximate balance of evidence

Service Branch

NAVY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210303-146349

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26034970
Decision Date: 04/15/26 Archive Date: 04/15/26

DOCKET NO. 210303-146349
DATE: April 15, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for degenerative cervical spondylosis (neck disability) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for migraines is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for right eye pseudophakia and benign choroidal nevus (right eye disability) is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to hazardous noise exposure in service.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a neck disability began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a diagnosis of migraines at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

2. The criteria for service connection for a neck disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for migraines are not 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 served on active duty from September 1986 to September 1990.

In September 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested a review of a January 2021 decision. In February 2021, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior January 2021 rating decision.

In the March 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on October 9, 2024, before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2021 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, 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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

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, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

However, because the Board is remanding the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of that claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for 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,
in the adjudication of that claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

Service Connection

In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown,?6?Vet. App.?465, 470?(1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value.?38 U.S.C. § 7104?(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465. Lay statements may serve to support a claim for service connection by supporting the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to noise exposure in service.

To begin, an October 2019 VA examination reflects a current diagnosis of bilateral tinnitus. Additionally, the records show that the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) was damage controlman in the Navy and that he was exposed to hazardous noise in service. See DD 214; see also February 2021 Rating Decision. Accordingly, the first and second elements of service connection have been met.

Regarding a nexus to service, the Board finds that the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his military service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2019, in which he reported the onset of his tinnitus in active duty service. The Veteran described that his work required him to go into machinery spaces and be subject to the catapult system on an aircraft carrier. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that his tinnitus was caused by, or a result of, his military noise exposure. The examiner explained that the entrance and exit exam revealed normal hearing, and that service treatment records indicate no significant permanent shift in hearing thresholds greater than normal measurement variability from entrance to separation, evidence of no permanent auditory damage on active duty. The examiner opined that there is no nexus between auditory damage on active duty and the Veteran's tinnitus. As rationale, the examiner stated that the Veteran did not complain of tinnitus in service, and that the etiology remains unknown. The Board finds this opinion is of minimal probative value as it conflates hearing loss with tinnitus and is not based on the Veteran's lay statements describing ringing in his ears.

Additionally, the Veteran testified that the noise of working on a ship during active duty he experienced constant loud noises that caused him to hear a high-pitched white noise since service. He described the sound as constant "white noise, intense raindrops [...]" and the sound of someone saying "shh" constantly. See October 9, 2024, Hearing Transcript. The Veteran also described the ringing white noise getting worse at night.

The Board acknowledges that the record does not contain a positive nexus opinion linking the Veteran's tinnitus to his active-duty service. However, a probative medical nexus opinion is not necessarily required
as it conflates hearing loss with tinnitus and is not based on the Veteran's lay statements describing ringing in his ears.

The Board acknowledges that the record does not contain a positive nexus opinion linking the Veteran's tinnitus to his active-duty service. However, a probative medical nexus opinion is not necessarily required in this case. Tinnitus is defined as, "a noise in the ear, such as ringing, buzzing, roaring, or clicking." See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1714 (28th ed. 1994). Given the nature of tinnitus, it is a rare type of disability for which the Veteran is competent to establish the onset, continuity, and current presence of tinnitus based on his own lay assertions. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); see also Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002)(finding veteran competent to testify as to ringing in the ears (tinnitus)). Thus, the Veteran is competent to state that he began experiencing tinnitus during service, and that it has continued to the present. The Board concludes that, despite the VA examiner's conclusion that tinnitus is not related to in-service noise exposure, the Veteran has credibly attested that he began to experience ringing in his ears during service that has continued to the present.

The Board finds that the competent and credible evidence of record shows that the Veteran's tinnitus occurred in service. In rendering this decision, the Board has reviewed all evidence of record, whether or not it has been discussed in detail. See Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding the Board must only discuss the evidence which is relevant to the issues on appeal).

Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds the criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The claim is granted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is denied.

The Veteran asserts that his neck disability is due to an in-service injury where he hit his head on the wing of a plane during an emergency response on a ship. See September 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits (VA Form 21-526EZ).

March 2016 private medical records show that the Veteran had degenerative cervical spondylosis involving the mid and lower cervical spine without acute fracture or subluxation. See March 2016 South Baldwin Medical Center Radiology Report. Accordingly, the first element of service connection has been met.

As to the second element of service connection, an in-service injury, the Board finds that the Veteran's service treatment records contain various hospital visits, beginning in December 1987, during which time he complained of lightheadedness after working the "main spaces." His head and neck were noted to be normal, and it was noted that his symptoms had resolved at discharge.

In June 1988 and July 1988, the Veteran was treated for left knee pain after slipping on the deck of the ship. His head and neck were normal, and he did not complain of pain or headaches or assert that he had hit his head.

In March 1989, the Veteran was treated at the emergency room for a twisted right ankle after stepping into a chuck hole two hours prior. His head and neck were normal, and he did not complain of pain or headaches or assert that he had hit his head.

In November 1989, the Veteran was treated for a fall in which he complained of loss of vision after the accident. The examiner reported no head trauma. His head and neck were normal and did not complain of pain or headaches or assert that he had hit his head.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and is against the Veteran's claim. While the evidence of record shows that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a neck disability, the probative evidence does not demonstrate that it is related to service. In this regard, the Board places great probative weight on the VA examiner's opinion as the opinion sets out clear conclusions and supporting data, as well as reasoned medical explanations connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. 295
which he complained of loss of vision after the accident. The examiner reported no head trauma. His head and neck were normal and did not complain of pain or headaches or assert that he had hit his head.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and is against the Veteran's claim. While the evidence of record shows that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a neck disability, the probative evidence does not demonstrate that it is related to service. In this regard, the Board places great probative weight on the VA examiner's opinion as the opinion sets out clear conclusions and supporting data, as well as reasoned medical explanations connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007).

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contentions to the effect that his current symptoms are due to service. Lay witnesses are competent to provide testimony or statements relating to symptoms or facts that they have observed and are within the realm of their personal knowledge, but are not competent to establish that which would require specialized knowledge or training, such as medical expertise. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994).

In the instant case, the Board finds that questions regarding the potential relationship between the Veteran's neck disability and any instance of service to be complex in nature. See Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007) (although the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition, such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). If evidence is found to be competent, it is for the Board to determine what, if any, probative value to assign to that evidence. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005)

The Board has considered the Veteran's testimony and contentions as well as the medical evidence of record, whether it has been discussed in detail or not. After a thorough review, the Board finds that the Veteran is competent to describe his current symptoms, but not credible as to their in-service occurrence or nexus to service. While the Veteran's service treatment records contain multiple visits to the hospital emergency room during active duty for slips, falls, and injuries, there are no reports of head or neck injury, trauma, loss of consciousness, headaches, or other symptoms related to the claim of service connection for a neck disability. As discussed above, service treatment records show that the Veteran sought medical treatment right away, often within hours, after an injury. He followed up several times after a knee injury and an ankle sprain, noting pain to the examiners. However, there is no medical evidence that the Veteran reported pain in his neck, head, or experienced headaches in service. As such, the Board finds these facts to be probative regarding the asserted in-service injury described by the Veteran. The Veteran testified that he was treated at the emergency room for an injury to his eyebrow/head after running into the wing of a plane. However, there are no supporting records to show that the injury occurred. The Veteran submitted two pages of medical records from private providers. These reports are insufficient evidence to support a medical nexus to service. No additional medical records or statements were submitted during the 90-day period following the Veteran's Board hearing about his claims. In light of these inconsistencies, the Board finds that his recollection of the etiology of his symptoms is unreliable. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1374, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that when evaluating credibility of lay statements in particular, the Board may consider whether the statements conflict with and are consistent with other statements or evidence, the potential bias of the witness, and the level of detail of the information reported); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2006) (holding the Board may reject lay statements if it finds them to be mistaken, incorrect, untrustworthy, or otherwise unreliable). Thus, while the Veteran is competent to describe the manifestations of his neck injury and migraines, the Board must afford his statements regarding the etiology of these disabilities little probative value.

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of the issue, and the benefit of the doubt shall not be given to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When the evidence is not in approximate balance or
the Board may reject lay statements if it finds them to be mistaken, incorrect, untrustworthy, or otherwise unreliable). Thus, while the Veteran is competent to describe the manifestations of his neck injury and migraines, the Board must afford his statements regarding the etiology of these disabilities little probative value.

3. Entitlement to service connection for migraines, to include as secondary to a neck disability, is denied.

The Veteran contends that he has a current diagnosis of migraines that are due to the injury described above in service. Alternatively, he contends his migraines are secondary to his neck disability. At the October 9, 2024, hearing, the Veteran described that his headaches began prior to separation from service and have escalated into migraines that have continued since service.

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation.?38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown,?104 F.3d 1328, 1332?(1997) (holding that interpretation of section 1110 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim.?Brammer?v. Derwinski,?3 Vet. App. 223, 225?(1992).

After a review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of migraines and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

While the Veteran believes there is a current diagnosis of migraines, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education to properly attribute the Veteran's symptoms to the appropriate underlying cause. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as there is no approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of the issue, the benefit of the doubt shall not be given to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the claim is denied.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability is remanded.

Remand is required to correct a duty to assist error that occurred prior to the rating decision on appeal.

Favorable findings from the February 2021 Rating Decision include a current diagnosis of pseudophakia and benign choroidal nevus of the right eye and an occurrence of a qualifying event, injury, or disease during service. The Veteran's service treatment records show chemical conjunctivitis on March 24, 1989. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

In a November 2019 VA examination, the examiner diagnosed subjective blurred distance vision in the right eye, bilateral pseudophakia, and a benign choroidal nevus of the right eye. The examiner provided a negative nexus medical opinion, stating that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's right eye condition is due to active-duty service. As rationale, the examiner stated that the Veteran's right eye disability is "subjective and due to normal dominance." No further rationale was provided.

The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability because no VA examiner has opined whether the eye injury in service identified in the February 2021 rating decision caused the Veteran's current right eye disability. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303,
, bilateral pseudophakia, and a benign choroidal nevus of the right eye. The examiner provided a negative nexus medical opinion, stating that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's right eye condition is due to active-duty service. As rationale, the examiner stated that the Veteran's right eye disability is "subjective and due to normal dominance." No further rationale was provided.

The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability because no VA examiner has opined whether the eye injury in service identified in the February 2021 rating decision caused the Veteran's current right eye disability. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (once VA undertakes to provide a medical examination or opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). An adequate medical opinion must be based upon a consideration of the Veteran's prior medical history and must describe the Veteran's condition in sufficient detail so as to allow the Board to make a fully informed evaluation. Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405, 407 (1994). As such, remand is warranted.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Ask an examiner of appropriate expertise to review the Veteran's file. The necessity of an in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. Based on review of the record and conducting an examination (if deemed necessary) of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following:

The examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's right eye disability began in service, was caused by active service, or is otherwise related to active service.

The examiner should specifically address the March 1989 injury to the Veteran's eye and must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed.

Christopher Seppanen

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Marron, Sara C.

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