TINNITUS

DAVID H. ROBERTSON · 2026 · Case ID: A26038495

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, a Navy Veteran who served from June 1985 to June 1989, appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran contends that his tinnitus is due to hazardous noise exposure sustained during service, specifically from jet engines and aircraft carriers, despite his MOS as a communication and intelligence specialist. The Board found the prior VA medical opinions inadequate because they relied on an inaccurate premise regarding the Veteran's MOS and failed to address his lay statements about noise exposure. The Board noted that the Veteran's current tinnitus diagnosis and in-service hazardous noise exposure were already favorably established by the agency of original jurisdiction. The Board found the Veteran credible, as his statements regarding the onset and continuity of tinnitus since service were supported by his flight logs, which detailed numerous catapult shots and carrier arrested landings. Based on the credible lay evidence and the established in-service nexus, the Board found service connection for tinnitus warranted. The appeal was granted.

Rationale

Prior VA opinions found inadequate due to reliance on inaccurate MOS premise; Prior VA opinions failed to discuss lay statements regarding noise exposure; Veteran's lay statements regarding tinnitus onset and continuity found credible and supported by military records

Service Branch

NAVY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210504-157049

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038495
Decision Date: 04/24/26 Archive Date: 04/24/26

DOCKET NO. 210504-157049
DATE: April 24, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's tinnitus is etiologically related to hazardous noise exposure sustained during active service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1985 to June 1989.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in April 2021 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In the May 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on November 26, 2024.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (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, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review 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.

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.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus

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

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).

Some chronic diseases may be presumed to have been incurred in service, if they become manifest to a degree of ten percent or more within the applicable presumptive period. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101(3), 1112(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(a). For those listed chronic conditions, a showing of continuity of symptoms affords an alternative route to service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Tinnitus, as an organic disease of the nervous system, is a listed condition, with a presumptive period of one year following separation from service.

The Board notes that in the April 2021 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ determined that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of tinnitus and in-service hazardous noise exposure. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. See 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).

Accordingly, the question before the Board is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's current tinnitus and service.

VA opinions were obtained in March 2020 and December 2020. The VA examiners opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's tinnitus was caused by or the result of military noise exposure during service. The examiners based their opinion on the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) of communication and intelligence specialist, which indicated a low probability of hazardous noise exposure.

The Veteran reported to both VA examiners that his tinnitus began during service after his second Western Pacific
.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).

Accordingly, the question before the Board is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's current tinnitus and service.

The Veteran reported to both VA examiners that his tinnitus began during service after his second Western Pacific Cruise. He explained that he experienced hazardous noise during service from jet engines and aircraft carriers and only had a helmet to block out the noise. In support of these statements, the Veteran submitted his flight log from his military records which included 128 catapult shots, 126 carrier arrested landings, 452.6 hours in a S-3A and 4.6 hours in a SH-3H.

The Board finds the March 2020 and December 2020 VA opinions inadequate to decide the claim. In this regard, the examiners relied on an inaccurate factual premise, namely, that the Veteran's MOS had low probable hazardous noise exposure, to render their negative nexus opinions. In addition, they did not discuss the lay statements of the Veteran regarding his noise exposure during service. See Nieves- Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). These opinions are therefore afforded little, if any, probative weight.

The Veteran is competent to report that he first experienced tinnitus during active service and that the symptoms have continued ever since. Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran credible as his statements are supported by his military records. See also Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991).

In sum, the Board finds that the lay evidence weighs in favor of the claim as credibly and candidly presented by the Veteran. Accordingly, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for tinnitus as related to his active service is warranted. The appeal is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

David H. Robertson

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board L. Boyd, 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