TINNITUS

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the Navy from January 1993 to April 1993 and again from January 2006 to October 2006, appeals the February 2021 decision denying service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran claims exposure to acoustic trauma and excessive noise during service, particularly during deployment, leading to tinnitus. The Board found that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of tinnitus and that the condition could have originated during service, given his military occupational specialty as a Navy law enforcement specialist. The VA examiner opined that the tinnitus was less likely than not related to service, citing the Veteran's denial of symptoms on a post-deployment assessment and the gradual onset of symptoms approximately five years prior to the exam. However, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing that his examination answers may have been misconstrued and that his tinnitus developed during deployment. Crucially, the Veteran submitted medical opinions from his treating provider, who opined that the tinnitus was most likely caused by in-service noise exposure, noting objective findings consistent with noise exposure. Buddy statements from family members and a coworker also supported the Veteran's claims of noise exposure and post-deployment tinnitus. The Board found both the VA examiner and the treating provider credible. Given that the evidence regarding service connection was nearly balanced, the Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine, resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor. Consequently, service connection for tinnitus was granted.

Rationale

Veteran's treating provider opined tinnitus most likely caused by in-service noise exposure; VA examiner opined tinnitus less likely than not related to service; Evidence in approximate balance, benefit of doubt applied

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040610
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 211013-196037
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran's tinnitus is related to in-service noise exposure.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to 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 January 2006 to October 2006, with additional periods of service, including active duty training from January 1993 to April 1993.

In April 2021, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a February 2021 decision.  In July 2021, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior February 2021 decision.  Therefore, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2021 decision and any evidence submitted during an applicable evidentiary window.

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 on June 2, 2025.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2021 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, 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, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, 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 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

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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).

For certain chronic diseases, including tinnitus as an organic disease of the nervous system, a disability will be presumed related to service if it was shown as chronic in service or if it manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.  If the disease's chronicity was not noted in service, the disability can still be presumed related to service if the evidence shows there is a continuity of symptomatology since service.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 271-72 (2015).

A veteran is competent to describe symptoms that he experienced in service or at any time after service, when the symptoms he perceived or experienced were directly through the senses.  See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994).  Lay evidence may establish a diagnosis of a simple medical
ity was not noted in service, the disability can still be presumed related to service if the evidence shows there is a continuity of symptomatology since service.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 271-72 (2015).

A veteran is competent to describe symptoms that he experienced in service or at any time after service, when the symptoms he perceived or experienced were directly through the senses.  See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994).  Lay evidence may establish a diagnosis of a simple medical condition, a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or symptoms that later support a diagnosis by a medical professional.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

When the evidence is in approximate balance in the veteran's favor or nearly equal regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side, or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.

The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.  He contends that he was exposed to acoustic trauma and excessive noise on a daily basis and developed tinnitus during his deployment.  See January 2021 VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim; see also June 2025 Hearing Transcript, Page 4.

Initially, the Board notes that, in the July 2021 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ made favorable findings as to a current disability, noting the Veteran's diagnosis of tinnitus, and to a qualifying event, injury, or disease having its onset during the Veteran's service, noting his military occupational specialty of Navy law enforcement specialist.  The Board accepts these favorable findings, satisfying the first and second elements of service connection.  Thus, the remaining inquiry before the Board is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's tinnitus and his time in service.

Turning to the evidence of record, during his VA examination in February 2021, the Veteran was diagnosed with recurrent tinnitus.  The examiner noted that the Veteran reported that his tinnitus came on gradually approximately 5 years ago.  The Veteran further reported that he was exposed to noise during service by way of firing ranges and explosions.  He reported post-service noise exposure to trucks while working at Publix.  The VA examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is less likely than not due to military noise exposure.  Although the examiner indicated that the Veteran's military occupational specialty has a moderate probability of hazardous noise exposure, the examiner noted that the Veteran denied ringing in his ears during his post-deployment health assessment and reported that his symptoms began about 5 years ago.  The VA examiner further noted that tinnitus is a common health problem and there are many causes that lead to the development of tinnitus in the general population.

Upon review of his service treatment records, the Veteran's records do not document complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of tinnitus.

During his June 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he did not recall reporting to the examiner that his tinnitus began 5 years ago and indicated that his answers during his VA examination may have been misconstrued.  See June 2025 Hearing Transcript, Pages 4-5.  Rather, he testified that he developed tinnitus during his deployment and did not report his symptoms on his post-deployment health assessment because he was ready to return home.  See June 2025 Hearing Transcript, Page 4.

In support of his claim, in June 2025, the Veteran submitted medical opinions and treatment records from his provider at an ear, nose, and throat practice.  In May 2025, the Veteran's treating provider documented tinnitus in the Veteran's left ear and opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was most likely caused by or a result of his in-service noise exposure.  The provider noted that otoacoustic emissions confirm some loss of outer hair cells in the higher pitches, which contributes to the Veteran's tinnitus and is most consistent with prior noise exposure.  In May 2024, the Veteran's provider previously noted that the Veteran's tinnitus is more likely than not due to his prior noise exposure in the military, noting that assymetry is the primary source for his tinnitus.  And in May 
 from his provider at an ear, nose, and throat practice.  In May 2025, the Veteran's treating provider documented tinnitus in the Veteran's left ear and opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was most likely caused by or a result of his in-service noise exposure.  The provider noted that otoacoustic emissions confirm some loss of outer hair cells in the higher pitches, which contributes to the Veteran's tinnitus and is most consistent with prior noise exposure.  In May 2024, the Veteran's provider previously noted that the Veteran's tinnitus is more likely than not due to his prior noise exposure in the military, noting that assymetry is the primary source for his tinnitus.  And in May 2023, the Veteran's provider indicated that the Veteran's tinnitus looked like it was from a previously documented noise exposure ulcer in the military.

The Veteran additionally submitted buddy statements from his spouse, parents, sibling, and coworker.  The buddy statements, in part, document the Veteran's reports of exposure to noise during his deployment and his reports of ringing in his ears post-deployment.

Considering the above medical opinions, both the Veteran's treating provider and VA examiner are competent to provide the requested opinions, and the Board has no reason to question their credibility.  Therefore, given that both the Veteran's treating provider and VA examiner opined on service connection for the Veteran's tinnitus, the positive and negative evidence regarding service connection is nearly balanced.  As such, the evidence is in approximate balance and therefore finds that the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine applies.  After resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's tinnitus was caused by his in-service noise exposure and, thus, is related to service.  Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 

 

H.M. WALKER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Caitlin B.

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.