TINNITUS

Summary

The veteran served from August 1980 to August 2000. The veteran appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, and diabetes mellitus. The veteran also sought service connection for bilateral eye and kidney conditions secondary to diabetes mellitus. The Board granted service connection for bilateral tinnitus, finding the veteran's lay testimony credible and resolving doubt in his favor, noting the RO's concession of noise exposure during service. For bilateral hearing loss, the Board denied service connection, finding the VA examination competent and the evidence persuasive against a current diagnosis, despite the veteran's claims of noise exposure. Peripheral neuropathy claims were denied due to a lack of current diagnosis and objective evidence, despite the veteran's claims of tingling and burning sensations attributed to cold weather exposure. Diabetes mellitus claims were denied due to a lack of current diagnosis or treatment in service or post-service records, despite the veteran's belief it stemmed from military food consumption. Consequently, the secondary claims for eye and kidney conditions based on diabetes were also denied. The veteran's appeal for bilateral hearing loss, peripheral neuropathy, and diabetes mellitus was denied.

Rationale

RO conceded noise exposure during service; Veteran's lay testimony regarding tinnitus onset and continuity found credible; Benefit of the doubt resolved in veteran's favor

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039787
Decision Date: 04/28/26	Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 210821-180700
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition as secondary to diabetes mellitus is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral kidney condition as secondary to diabetes mellitus is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had diabetes mellitus at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

5. The Veteran is not entitled to service connection for diabetes mellitus, the primary disability upon which his secondary service connection claims for bilateral eye and bilateral kidney conditions are based. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral 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 bilateral hearing loss 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 left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

8. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye condition as secondary to diabetes mellitus are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

9. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral kidney condition as secondary to diabetes mellitus are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1980 to August 2000. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2021 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the August 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on February 26, 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record
, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1980 to August 2000. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2021 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the August 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on February 26, 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) 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. 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. 

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

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, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection may also be granted for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). When service connection is established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. Id. 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) proximately caused by or (b) proximately aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995).

Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic (reliably diagnosed) in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus, and diabetes mellitus are such chronic diseases.

VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim, with the veteran prevailing, or whether the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b).

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for tinnitus. During the Board hearing, the Veteran stated he has experienced ringing and buzzing in his ears since service. 

In
, with the veteran prevailing, or whether the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b).

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for tinnitus. During the Board hearing, the Veteran stated he has experienced ringing and buzzing in his ears since service. 

In the June 2021 rating decision, the RO favorably found that the Veteran has a diagnosis of tinnitus, as shown in a May 2021 VA examination report. The RO also conceded that the Veteran was exposed to noise during service due to his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a Light Weight Vehicle Mechanic. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).

Tinnitus is, by definition, "a noise in the ears, such as ringing, buzzing, roaring, or clicking. It is usually subjective in type." See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 1914 (30th ed. 2003). Because tinnitus is "subjective," its existence is generally determined by whether the Veteran claims to experience it or not.

The Veteran was afforded a VA hearing loss and tinnitus examination in May 2021. He reported that his tinnitus onset during service, and noted that he was always around a lot of loud noise from generators, power tools, and heavy equipment. He described his tinnitus as an intermittent high pitched pure tone. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's tinnitus was caused by or the result of military noise. As rationale in support of the opinion, the VA examiner stated the Veteran's hearing was normal during service, and that normal tinnitus is experienced by most people without hearing loss or noise exposure. The VA examiner stated that based on the fact that the Veteran's experience of intermittent tinnitus is within the normal experience, it is less likely than not related to military noise. 

The Board notes that lay evidence has been found competent with regard to a disease that has "unique and readily identifiable features" that are "capable of lay observation." See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308-09 (2007). As a lay person, the Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology because tinnitus is capable of lay observation. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); see also Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002) ("ringing in the ears is capable of lay observation"). He has competently and credibly reported that he has had intermittent tinnitus during and since service.

Resolving any remaining reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted and the appeal is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

The Veteran asserts he is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, which he believes is the result of military noise exposure.

Impaired hearing will be considered a disability for VA purposes 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 these frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

After reviewing the evidence, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes and has not had bilateral hearing loss at any time during the pendency of the claim. In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

The Veteran was afforded a VA hearing loss examination in May 2021, during which his bilateral ear pure tone thresholds, in decibels (dB), were as follows:

 	HERTZ	 	 	 	 

 	500	1000	2000	3000	4000

RIGHT	 15	 10	 20	 25	 20

LEFT	 20	 10
 current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes and has not had bilateral hearing loss at any time during the pendency of the claim. In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

The Veteran was afforded a VA hearing loss examination in May 2021, during which his bilateral ear pure tone thresholds, in decibels (dB), were as follows:

 	HERTZ	 	 	 	 

 	500	1000	2000	3000	4000

RIGHT	 15	 10	 20	 25	 20

LEFT	 20	 10	 20	 25	 25

The Veteran's Maryland CNC Test results were 96 percent for the right ear, and 94 percent for the left ear.

These results show, and the VA examiner noted, that the Veteran does not have current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Board finds that the May 2021 VA examination is competent, credible, and probative. The examination report also confirms the examiner conducted a review of the Veteran's medical records as part of the assessment. There is no indication within the post-service medical records that the Veteran was noted to have bilateral hearing loss.

Thus, based on a review of the entire record, the Board finds the evidence weighs persuasively against the Veteran's claim. As such, the Veteran's appeal for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56 (1990).

3. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

5. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

6. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities. During the Board hearing, the Veteran claimed that he has peripheral neuropathy as a result of being exposed to cold weather while in the military. He described having tingling of the hands and feet. 

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy 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).

The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any complaints of or treatment for neuropathy. Additionally, a review of post-service VA and private medical records failed to show the Veteran has been treated for or diagnosed with neuropathy. He was afforded a VA peripheral nerves conditions examination in April 2021. The Veteran reported he began having symptoms of bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities in service, and symptoms have worsened since service separation. He stated he experiences burning sensations, numbness, tingling, and cramping, and treats his symptoms with over-the-counter pain relievers. Upon examination, the VA examiner determined that the Veteran's muscle strength, reflexes, and sensory tests were all normal for the upper and lower extremities. The VA examiner concluded that the Veteran did not have any objective evidence to support a diagnosis for a peripheral nerve condition. 

While the Veteran believes there is a current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case, as he lacks the medical training and education to make such a determination.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. As noted above, it does not appear from medical treatment notes that the Veteran was ever treated for peripheral neuropathy, and the VA examiner did not issue a diagnosis due to a lack of objective evidence to support such a finding. 

Therefore, service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities must be denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim
au v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. As noted above, it does not appear from medical treatment notes that the Veteran was ever treated for peripheral neuropathy, and the VA examiner did not issue a diagnosis due to a lack of objective evidence to support such a finding. 

Therefore, service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities must be denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990).

7. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for diabetes mellitus. He stated during the Board hearing that his diabetes is the result of consuming military food for 20 years during service.  

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus 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).

The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any complaints of or treatment for diabetes. The Board acknowledges that March 2024 treatment notes show the Veteran underwent a diabetes screening. However, at no point within the Veteran's post-service VA and private medical records has he ever been treated for or diagnosed with diabetes. 

The Veteran believes there is a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, but he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case given that he lacks the medical training and education to make such a determination.  Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination with respect to the claim. The Board finds no such examination was required because the evidence weighs persuasively against finding that there is a current diagnosis of the claimed condition that may be associated with the Veteran's active service. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). As previously stated, following a thorough review of the record it does not appear that the Veteran was treated for or diagnosed with diabetes. 

Therefore, service connection for diabetes mellitus of the bilateral upper and lower extremities must be denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56 (1990).

8. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition as secondary to diabetes mellitus is denied. 

9. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral kidney condition as secondary to diabetes mellitus is denied.

The Veteran also seeks service connection for bilateral eye and bilateral kidney conditions as secondary to diabetes mellitus. During the Board hearing, the Veteran and his representative specifically argued that the claimed bilateral eye and kidney conditions are the result of diabetes.

As discussed above, the Board determined that the evidence weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. As a result, service connection cannot be granted on secondary basis for the claimed bilateral eye and bilateral kidney conditions because service connection is not warranted for diabetes mellitus, the primary disability upon which the secondary claims are based. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). 

Thus, service connection for bilateral eye and bilateral kidney conditions must also be denied.

 

 

Cynthia M. Bruce

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	N. Miller, 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. 


 primary disability upon which the secondary claims are based. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). 

Thus, service connection for bilateral eye and bilateral kidney conditions must also be denied.

 

 

Cynthia M. Bruce

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	N. Miller, 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.