TINNITUS

Summary

The veteran, who served from March 1986 to March 1990 as a construction equipment operator, appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus. The Board found that the veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus, satisfying the first element for service connection. For the second element, the veteran testified at a June 2025 hearing that he began experiencing tinnitus in approximately 1987 during service, operating heavy equipment without hearing protection. He stated the ringing has been consistent and worsened over time, and he did not report it during service because he didn't know what tinnitus was. The Board found the veteran's testimony credible and assigned substantial probative weight to his statements, noting his post-service occupational history did not involve significant noise exposure. While a July 2021 VA medical opinion concluded the tinnitus was less likely than not related to service, the Board found this opinion not probative due to the presumptive nature of chronic tinnitus under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). The Board applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine, finding the evidence in approximate balance and resolving doubt in the veteran's favor. Consequently, service connection for tinnitus was granted, finding it related to hazardous noise exposure during service and continuously present since its onset.

Rationale

Competent evidence of current diagnosis; Veteran's testimony regarding in-service onset and continuity of symptoms is credible; Benefit of the doubt applied due to approximate balance of evidence

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040591
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 211020-192719
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The competent and probative evidence of record is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's tinnitus was onset during service with continued symptomatology since that time. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1986 to March 1990.  

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

This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 14, 2021 Higher-Level Review (HLR) rating decision. In the October 2021 VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge on June 10, 2025. See 6/10/2025 Hearing Transcript. Based upon the selection of the Hearing docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record as of July 8, 2021-the date of the rating decision which prompted the Veteran's selection of the HLR review lane-and evidence submitted at or within 90 days of the June 11, 2025 Board hearing. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2601(f), 20.302. If the Veteran submitted evidence that was added to the record after July 8, 2021 and before the June 11, 2025 Board hearing, or more than 90 days following the Board hearing, the Board did not consider it. If the Veteran wishes to have VA consider any evidence that was not considered, a supplemental claim should be submitted identifying such evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

At the 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran requested a copy of the transcript that was going to be produced. It does not appear that the Veteran has been provided a copy of the transcript and the Board apologies for that oversight. However, the Board finds that since this decision is a full grant of the service connection benefit sought on appeal there is no harm to the Veteran in issuing this decision at this time. If the Veteran still desires a copy of the June 2025 Board hearing transcript, then he is advised to submit a Privacy Act request to the Board. 

Service Connection

As a general matter, establishing service connection requires competent evidence of (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

Tinnitus (as an organic disease of the nervous system) is considered a "chronic" disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Therefore, the presumptive service connection provisions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for service connection based on "chronic" symptoms in service and "continuous" symptoms since service are applicable. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For the showing of chronic diseases in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. With chronic disease as such in service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

The Board is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively supports the claim or is in approximate balance, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence is persuasively against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. When there is an approximate balance of positive and
 disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. With chronic disease as such in service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

The Board is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively supports the claim or is in approximate balance, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence is persuasively against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Service connection for tinnitus.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for tinnitus that was onset during service in relation to his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a construction equipment operator. 6/10/2025 Hearing Transcript, pp. 2-3. 

The RO's September 2021 rating decision made the favorable finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. 9/14/2021 Rating Decision, p. 2. The Board sees no clear and unmistakable error in this finding and, therefore, now finds that the first element of service connection is established by competent evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

As to the second element of service connection, that of the in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, the Veteran's personnel record confirm that the Veteran served as a construction equipment operator, which is associated with a moderate probability for hazardous noise exposure. 2/26/2020 DD 214; 9/14/2021 Rating Decision, p. 2. 

At the June 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he began experiencing ringing and hissing in his ears during service in approximately 1987. 6/10/2025 Hearing Transcript, p. 4. The Veteran testified that as part of his in-service duties, he operated heavy equipment, including backhoes, front end loaders, dump trucks, cranes, bulldozers, speed rollers, and mechanical tampers at his base and was never encouraged to wear hearing protection. Id. at 3. The Veteran indicated that since its original onset during service, he has consistently experienced ringing, which has gotten progressively worse over time. Id. at 5. Furthermore, with respect to not reporting tinnitus during service, the Veteran indicated that he knew he was experiencing ringing but that he did not actually know what tinnitus was at the time. Id. at 3. As to his post-service occupational history, the Veteran's testimony indicates that he did not have any significant noise exposure following his military service. Id. at 4. The Board sees no reason to question the veracity or credibility of the Veteran and assigns substantial probative weight to his statements. 

The Board acknowledges the July 2021 VA medical opinion in which the examiner concluded that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's tinnitus is a result of his hazardous noise exposure during service. See 7/6/2021 C&P Exam. However, the Board finds that in this case, the VA nexus opinion is not probative as tinnitus is presumptively linked to military service based on a showing of a chronic disease in service.

(CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE)

?

After review of the complete record, and after having resolved all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the competent and probative evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran has experienced continuous symptomatology since service and that the Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). 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." Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014). As such, the Board finds that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to hazardous noise exposure while in service, that his tinnitus began during service, and that it has continued since its original onset. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309(a). Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is granted. 

 

 

Paul Sorisio

Veterans Law Judge

Board
 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." Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014). As such, the Board finds that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to hazardous noise exposure while in service, that his tinnitus began during service, and that it has continued since its original onset. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309(a). Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is granted. 

 

 

Paul Sorisio

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Donahue, Thomas P.

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.