TINNITUS

PAUL SORISIO · 2026 · Case ID: A26039043

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran served from December 1945 to May 1947. This case concerns the Veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran asserts that his tinnitus began during service due to unprotected exposure to loud noises, including tank gun, mortar, and shooting range fire. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) conceded in-service noise exposure based on the Veteran's MOS as a truck driver, and also conceded toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) involving chemical exposure. A May 2025 VA examination, primarily focused on bilateral hearing loss, did not specifically inquire about tinnitus symptoms. The Board found the Veteran competent to identify tinnitus symptoms and their continuity. Given the conceded noise exposure, TERA, and existing service connection for bilateral hearing loss (also linked to TERA), the Board found it reasonable to infer that the tinnitus is due to the same causes as the hearing loss and may be secondary to it. The Board also took judicial notice that hearing loss can cause tinnitus. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board found the evidence in approximate balance and granted service connection for tinnitus.

Rationale

Conceded in-service noise exposure and TERA; Existing service connection for bilateral hearing loss; Judicial notice that hearing loss can cause tinnitus; Benefit of doubt resolved in Veteran's favor

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250924-587709

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039043
Decision Date: 04/27/26 Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 250924-587709
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's tinnitus began during his active duty service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

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 FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1945 to May 1947.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2025 decision.

In August 2025, the Veteran requested higher-level review (HLR) of a July 2025 rating decision. In September 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the July 2025 decision.

In his September 2025 notice of disagreement (VA Form 10182), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was scheduled from January 23, 2025. Nevertheless, on the day of the Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request and waived the additional 90 days for evidence submission. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2025 decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). 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 receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 20.801.

***

The Veteran seeks service connection for tinnitus (ringing in the ears). See fully developed claim from December 11, 2024. He believes that his tinnitus began in service. He has reported in-service unprotected exposure to "very loud noises" from tank gun, mortar, and shooting range fire. See statement from May 5, 2025.

The July 2025 rating decision conceded in-service noise exposure on account of the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) of truck driver. It also conceded toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) in the form of exposure to chemicals, such as fuels. The Board is bound by these favorable findings.

A May 2025 VA examination is negative for a diagnosis of tinnitus. In his September 2025 notice of disagreement, the Veteran indicated that, at the VA examination, he was not asked if he had tinnitus symptoms. A review of the May 2025 VA examination report appears to show that the VA examination was mainly focused on the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. As such, it is plausible that the examiner did not specifically ask the Veteran whether he had tinnitus symptoms.

After careful consideration, the Board finds that there is sufficient evidence to support a grant of service connection.

To begin with, the Board finds that the Veteran's assertion that his tinnitus is related to service includes an implicit assertion of current tinnitus symptoms. Tinnitus is a condition observable by the senses. So, with tinnitus, the Veteran is competent to identify tinnitus symptoms, as well as any continuity of symptomatology. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002).

VA has conceded that the Veteran had both in-service noise exposure and toxic exposure risk activity (TERA). Furthermore, service connection is in effect for bilateral hearing loss. This grant was based on the Veteran's toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) during service.

As the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss has been found to be related to service, it is reasonable to assume that the Veteran's tinnitus is due to the same causes of the hearing loss. Furthermore, the Board recognizes that it is plausible that the Veteran's tinnitus is secondary to the service-connected hearing loss. In this regard, the Board takes judicial notice that hearing loss can cause tinnitus.

The Board resolves reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds the evidence shows the Veteran's tinnitus is due to service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a); see Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014) (noting that the benefit of the doubt rule is a unique standard of proof, and "the nation, 'in recognition of our debt to our veterans,' has 'taken upon itself the risk of error' in awarding such benefits"). As such, the Board finds that the evidence is nearly equal that the Veteran's current tinnitus is due to service. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

(Continued on the next page)

In sum, the Board finds that the relevant competent evidence is in approximate balance that the Veteran's tinnitus is either related to service.

Paul Sorisio

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board P. López, 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