TINNITUS

Summary

The Veteran, who served from July 1966 to November 1973, appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran claims his tinnitus resulted from exposure to hazardous military noise during service, specifically from aircraft operations and the flight line. The Board found that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus and that the second element, an in-service injury, was established by a favorable finding that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise related to his MOS as an aircraft maintenance specialist. The Board determined that the evidence regarding a nexus between the in-service noise exposure and the current tinnitus was in relative equipoise. The Veteran provided competent and credible lay statements establishing the onset of tinnitus during service and continuity of symptoms. A May 2022 VA examination concluded the tinnitus was less likely than not service-related, citing lack of in-service complaints and no support for late-onset noise-induced tinnitus in literature. However, the Board found this opinion inadequate, failing to address the possibility of late-onset tinnitus and the significance of the Veteran's credible lay statements. Applying the benefit of the doubt doctrine due to the equipoise of evidence, the Board granted service connection for tinnitus.

Rationale

Current diagnosis of tinnitus established.; In-service injury (noise exposure) established.; Evidence in equipoise regarding nexus.; Benefit of doubt applied to grant service connection.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040517
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 260423-650987
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence is at least approximately balanced regarding whether the Veteran's currently diagnosed tinnitus was incurred in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1966 to November 1973.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2026 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In the April 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 2026 AOJ 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. 

Service connection for tinnitus is granted.

The Veteran asserts that his recurrent tinnitus has resulted from his exposure to hazardous military noise during his active military service, including noise from the flight line such as jet engines, ground support equipment, and other aircraft-related operations.

Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record demonstrates that a veteran suffers from a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty during active military service.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  

Service connection for a disability requires competent and credible evidence of the following: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service; and (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service.  See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252 (1999).  

Certain chronic diseases, including tinnitus, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic 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 (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Where an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence exists regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Board shall afford the claimant the benefit of the doubt.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply only when the evidence of record persuasively favors a finding against the claim).

As an initial matter, the Board notes the AOJ's July 2022 favorable finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).  Accordingly, the Board finds that the first element of the Veteran's claim, a current diagnosis of tinnitus, has been established.  

Regarding the element of an in-service injury, the AOJ has also favorably found that the Veteran was exposed during service to hazardous noise associated with his MOS of aircraft maintenance specialist, which carries a high probability of noise exposure.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Accordingly, the Board finds that the second element of the Veteran's claim, an in-service injury, has also been established. 

Finally, turning to the establishment of a nexus, the Board finds the
 a current diagnosis of tinnitus.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).  Accordingly, the Board finds that the first element of the Veteran's claim, a current diagnosis of tinnitus, has been established.  

Regarding the element of an in-service injury, the AOJ has also favorably found that the Veteran was exposed during service to hazardous noise associated with his MOS of aircraft maintenance specialist, which carries a high probability of noise exposure.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Accordingly, the Board finds that the second element of the Veteran's claim, an in-service injury, has also been established. 

Finally, turning to the establishment of a nexus, the Board finds the evidence of record to be in relative equipoise regarding a relationship between the Veteran's in-service noise exposure and his recurrent tinnitus.  The Veteran's current tinnitus qualifies as a chronic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), and his competent and credible lay statements establish both the onset of his tinnitus during service and the continuity of symptomatology since service.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker, 708 F.3d at 1338-1339.

In that regard, in an April 16, 2026 lay statement, the Veteran reported that his tinnitus began during service after being exposed to hazardous military noise while working around aircraft. Initially the ringing in his ears would "come and go" but eventually became constant.

The Board acknowledges that a May 2022 VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's tinnitus is less likely than not caused by or a result of military noise exposure on the following grounds: (1) the onset of the Veteran's tinnitus was reported by the Veteran to be post-separation from his active duty service; (2) the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not indicate any report of tinnitus; and (3) "current literature does not support late onset noise-induced tinnitus."

However, the May 2022 opinion lacks the requisite adequacy, as it fails to acknowledge that service connection may be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the Veteran incurred the disease or injury in service, see 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d), and that lay evidence cannot be found to lack credibility based solely on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence.  See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006).  

Moreover, the Board finds that the evidence of record is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran initially experienced tinnitus during active service that has persisted to the present time. He is competent to report that tinnitus has been present since service.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002).  Therefore, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board concludes that service connection for tinnitus is warranted, and the claim is granted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

L. STEPANICK

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	E. Barbato

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.