TINNITUS

ANN K. MINAMI · 2026 · Case ID: A26039944

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Reserve petroleum supply specialist who served on active duty from April 2011 to August 2015, appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran reported noticing tinnitus and hearing loss around 2022. The case involved a procedural history where an initial Higher-Level Review was transferred to a Supplemental Claim due to a duty to assist error, and the Veteran subsequently elected Direct Review by the Board. The Board's review was limited to evidence of record at the time of the AOJ's supplemental claim decision. The Veteran underwent two VA examinations. The June 2024 examination yielded a negative nexus opinion for direct service connection. However, the March 2025 VA examination found a positive nexus, stating it was at least as likely as not that the tinnitus was caused by military noise exposure, citing the Veteran's MOS and reports of noise from heavy machinery and firearms. The Board found the two opinions to be in equipoise. Applying the benefit of the doubt, the Board resolved the reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, concluding that it was at least as likely as not that the tinnitus was related to military noise exposure. Consequently, service connection for tinnitus was granted.

Rationale

Conflicting VA opinions (June 2024 negative, March 2025 positive); Equipoise between opinions; Benefit of the doubt applied in Veteran's favor

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

260113-623219

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039944
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 260113-623219
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

By resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his military noise exposure.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 2011 to August 2015. He is also shown to have periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) in the Army Reserve.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in April 2025 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

Although the Veteran initially requested Higher-Level Review (HLR) when submitting the October 2024 VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: HLR, the Higher-Level Reviewer determined that there had been a duty to assist error and transferred the claim to the Supplemental Claim decision review option for additional development.

In the February 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) supplemental claim decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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, 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 Tinnitus

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection may also be established with certain chronic diseases, based upon a legal presumption, which occurs by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(3), 3.309(a).

Additionally, service connection may be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), when a symptom or symptoms of a chronic disease are noted in service, or within a year of the date of separation from service, and when chronicity is established through a continuity of symptomatology after service. The continuity of symptomatology provision is an alternative method to establishing service connection for the specific chronic diseases listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The Veteran seeks service connection for tinnitus, which he claims is due to in-service noise exposure. The Veteran's DD214 reflects an MOS for petroleum supply specialist.

The Veteran underwent VA examinations in June 2024 and March 2025, at which he relayed that he first noticed tinnitus with a decrease in his hearing around 2022. Although the June 2024 VA examiner provided a negative nexus opinion concerning direct service connection, the March 2025 VA examiner found that it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's tinnitus was caused by or a result of his military noise exposure. The examiner explained that noise exposure is a known causative factor of developing tinnitus, noting the Veteran's MOS for petroleum supply specialist and his reports of military noise exposure from heavy machinery and firearms.

(Continued on the next page)

Here, the June 2024 and March 2025 medical opinions concerning direct service connection are at least in equipoise, and therefore, by resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his military noise exposure.

Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is granted.

Ann K. Minami

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board S. Lutgens-Staley, Associate 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