TINNITUS

Summary

The veteran, who served from January 1987 to February 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus. The veteran claims the tinnitus began during service due to noise exposure. The Board noted that the veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are unavailable, but the veteran reported that his tinnitus began during military service. The March 2025 VA examiner opined that the tinnitus was less likely than not caused by service, relying on the absence of in-service records showing tinnitus or a significant threshold shift (STS). However, the Board found this opinion relied on an absence of evidence rather than affirmative evidence to the contrary. The Board acknowledged the veteran's statements regarding the onset of tinnitus during service, finding no reason to doubt them due to the lack of contemporaneous evidence, citing Buchanan v. Nicholson and Charles v. Principi. Given the lack of available STRs and the veteran's consistent report of onset during service, the Board found a reasonable doubt existed regarding the service origin of the tinnitus. Resolving this doubt in the veteran's favor, the Board granted service connection for tinnitus.

Rationale

Veteran reported tinnitus onset during service.; Service treatment records unavailable.; VA examiner opinion relied on absence of evidence.; Reasonable doubt resolved in veteran's favor.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040715
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 251013-597718
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's tinnitus is related to his military 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. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1987 to February 1991.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision.

The Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 in October 2025 and 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) decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301. ?If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the March 2025 rating decision, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.  Nevertheless, this decision represents a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal for the issue decided herein.  

Law and Analysis

Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, air, or space service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131.  That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease.  Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

For the showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time.  As organic diseases of the nervous system (including tinnitus) are considered to be chronic diseases for VA compensation purposes, if chronicity in service is not established, a showing of continuity of symptoms after discharge may support the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015) (adding tinnitus as an "organic disease of the nervous system" to the list of disabilities explicitly recognized as "chronic" in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)).

In addition, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities, including organic diseases of the nervous system (including tinnitus), are presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits.  VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (benefit-of-the-doubt rule not for application when evidence persuasively favors one side or the other).

In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for tinnitus.

The Veteran has claimed that he developed tinnitus during service due to noise exposure.  The AOJ made favorable findings that the Veteran had in-service noise exposure (an in-service event) and a current diagnosis of tinnitus that are binding on the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b)(4), 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a
4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (benefit-of-the-doubt rule not for application when evidence persuasively favors one side or the other).

In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for tinnitus.

The Veteran has claimed that he developed tinnitus during service due to noise exposure.  The AOJ made favorable findings that the Veteran had in-service noise exposure (an in-service event) and a current diagnosis of tinnitus that are binding on the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b)(4), 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a).  

Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records are unavailable.  However, he has reported that his current tinnitus began during his military service. See March 2025 VA examination report.  The Board finds that there is no reason to doubt the Veteran's statements as to the onset of his tinnitus other than a lack of contemporaneous evidence. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002) (noting that tinnitus is a type of disorder capable of lay observation and description).  

The Board acknowledges the March 2025 VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely than not caused by or a result of his military service, including noise exposure therein.  However, she relied on lack of in-service records showing tinnitus or a significant threshold shift (STS) in frequencies.  As previously noted, the Veteran's service treatment records are not available.  Thus, she relied on an absence of evidence as opposed to affirmative evidence showing otherwise.

Based on the foregoing, there is at least a reasonable doubt as to whether the Veteran's tinnitus had its onset in service.  Thus, resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, service connection is warranted.

 

 

J.W. ZISSIMOS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Deverter, Rebecca M.

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.