TINNITUS

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the U.S. Navy from January 1983 to June 1990, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral tinnitus. The Veteran consistently reported that her tinnitus began during service and has continued since, attributing it to noise exposure on the flight line and in the hanger, including pneumatic drills, aircraft engines, and constant roaring noises. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) made favorable findings regarding a current diagnosis of tinnitus and a qualifying in-service event due to noise exposure probability related to her MOS. The Board reviewed multiple VA examinations, one of which opined the condition was not due to service and questioned the Veteran's report of head noise, while another opined it was not due to military noise exposure due to low probability for her MOS and lack of verifiable noise injury. However, the Board found these opinions inadequate because they failed to address the Veteran's consistent reports of onset during service and continuity since. A private physician's May 2025 medical opinion, however, linked the chronic bilateral tinnitus to noise exposure during service, noting the Veteran's consistent reports. The Board found the private opinion provided a positive nexus. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board granted service connection for bilateral tinnitus.

Rationale

Veteran's consistent reports of onset during service and continuity since; Inadequate VA opinions that failed to address Veteran's consistent reports; Favorable private physician opinion linking tinnitus to noise exposure; Benefit of the doubt afforded to Veteran

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040208
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 210629-169349
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's bilateral tinnitus is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101,1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. 

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1983 to June 1990. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on an appeal from an April 2021 Higher Level Review (HLR) decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office, which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In the Veteran's June 2021 notice of disagreement, she elected the hearing docket. On March 28, 2025, the Veteran was afforded a Board hearing. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record before the AOJ at the time of its decision on the issue(s) on appeal, and evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative within 90 days following her Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300(a), 302(a). If additional evidence was submitted between the dates of the AOJ decision and the Board hearing, the Board will not consider it unless it is resubmitted during the 90 days following the Board hearing. If evidence is not resubmitted, the appellant is welcome to file a supplemental claim to have this evidence considered. Id.; Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

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 also known as a "nexus" between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For chronic diseases diagnosed as such during service, manifest to a compensable degree within one year post-service or a showing of continuity of symptomatology from service to the present may serve to satisfy the nexus element. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus

The Veteran contends that her bilateral tinnitus started during her active service and has continued and progressively worsened since that time. See November 2020 Correspondence. She stated that she worked as an aviation storekeeper and was exposed to loud noise on the flight line and in the hanger including pneumatic drills and tools, loud banging, aircraft engines and constant roaring noises. Id. 

In a December 2020 rating decision and April 2021 HLR decision, the AOJ made favorable findings that the Veteran 1) had a current diagnosis of bilateral tinnitus, 2) that evidence indicated that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service as her MOS had a probability of noise exposure, 3) that her disability was a chronic disease, and 4) that new and relevant evidence had been presented in support of her claim. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Thus, the question before the Board is whether the current tinnitus is related to service.

During a March 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that her tinnitus started during service and continued since that time. See March 2025 Hearing Transcript at 3. She stated that part of her job was to deliver equipment to the flight line and hanger and it was very loud with the jets constantly landing and taking off and the ground support equipment. Id. 

During a July 2020 VA examination, the Veteran reported her tinnitus started around 1990 and was intermittent. The examiner opined that condition was not due to service. They stated that the Veteran did not have tinnitus but instead had regular head noise based on the
). Thus, the question before the Board is whether the current tinnitus is related to service.

During a March 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that her tinnitus started during service and continued since that time. See March 2025 Hearing Transcript at 3. She stated that part of her job was to deliver equipment to the flight line and hanger and it was very loud with the jets constantly landing and taking off and the ground support equipment. Id. 

During a July 2020 VA examination, the Veteran reported her tinnitus started around 1990 and was intermittent. The examiner opined that condition was not due to service. They stated that the Veteran did not have tinnitus but instead had regular head noise based on the brevity and infrequency of the characteristics of the condition. Id.  

During a December 2020 VA examination, the Veteran reported her tinnitus started in 1990 and she believed it was due to exposure to loud banging and aircraft engines during service. She stated the tinnitus was constant. The examiner opined her tinnitus was not due to military noise exposure. In support of their opinion, they stated that she was an aviation storekeeper which had a low probability of hazardous noise exposure. They stated that tinnitus may occur following a single exposure to high-intensity impulse noise, long-term exposure to repetitive impulses, long-term exposure to continuous noise, or exposure to a combination of impulses and continuous noise. However, in the absence of objectively verifiable noise injury, the association between claimed tinnitus and noise exposure could not be assumed to exist. Id. 

In a May 2025 VA medical note, the Veteran's private physician opined that the Veteran's chronic bilateral tinnitus was caused by her noise exposure during service. See May 2025 VA Medical Treatment Records. In support, they noted that she was exposed to loud noise during service including aircraft noise and ground support equipment. In addition, the Veteran reported she did not have tinnitus before service, that the condition started during service and that it continued since that time. Id. 

The January 2020 VA examiner opined the Veteran did not have tinnitus, that she was experiencing regular head noise, and that the condition was not due to service. In addition, while the December 2020 VA examiner confirmed the Veteran's diagnosis of tinnitus, they also opined it was not due to service because there was no verifiable in-service noise injury and her job as an aviation storekeeper had a low probability of noise exposure. As the AOJ made favorable findings that the Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus, and as noise exposure is conceded, and as neither examiner discussed why they disregarded the Veteran's statements that her condition started during service and had continued since that time, the Board finds the opinions are inadequate and entitled to little probative value. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008) (holding that a medical report cannot merely draw conclusions from data; it should include "a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two").

The Veteran has consistently maintained that her tinnitus began in service and has continued since that time. The Veteran is competent to report her readily observable symptoms. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2), Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, the May 2025 medical opinion indicates a positive nexus as the physician opined the Veteran's bilateral tinnitus was caused by exposure to noise during her military service. See May 2025 VA Medical Treatment Records. 

(Continued on the next page)

?

Therefore, the Board finds that, affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, her tinnitus is due to her active military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is granted.

 

 

J. B. FREEMAN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	C. Aubee, 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.