TINNITUS

Summary

The Veteran, an Air Force Veteran who served from May 2000 to November 2004, appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus. The Regional Office (RO) had favorably found in-service exposure to hazardous noise and a current diagnosis of tinnitus but denied service connection due to a lack of medical nexus. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the RO's decision. The Board noted that while the Veteran denied tinnitus in earlier examinations, he reported it within one year of separation, and a subsequent VA examination diagnosed the condition. The Board found the Veteran competent to report his tinnitus symptoms, as it is a condition perceived through his senses. The Board also found the evidence to be in relative equipoise, with the Veteran's lay testimony of tinnitus being consistent with the medical diagnosis. Applying the benefit of the doubt doctrine, the Board resolved the equipoise in the Veteran's favor. Consequently, the Board found that the Veteran's chronic tinnitus manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. Service connection for tinnitus was granted.

Rationale

Favorable finding of in-service exposure to hazardous noise; Current diagnosis of tinnitus; Veteran competent to report symptoms; Evidence in relative equipoise; Benefit of the doubt applied

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040820
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250530-555632
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's tinnitus is a chronic disease that manifested to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from active service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Air Force from May 2000 to November 2004.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in April 2025 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the May 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected to have a Virtual Tele-hearing; however, his claim was docketed under the Direct Review docket. The Board finds that the erroneous docketing does not prejudice the Veteran due to his claim being granted.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (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. 

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. 

Tinnitus

The Veteran asserts he is entitled to service connection for tinnitus.

Generally, to establish service connection there must be competent evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the in-service injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain chronic disabilities, such as organic diseases of the nervous system, to include tinnitus, are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C. §§1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Alternatively, when a disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) is not shown to be chronic during service or the one-year presumptive period, service connection may also be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after service. 38 C.F.R. §3.303 (b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).

In the April 2025 rating decision, the AOJ made favorable findings of in-service exposure to hazardous noise and a current diagnosis of tinnitus. Despite these findings, the AOJ denied the Veteran's claim because there was no medical nexus linking his tinnitus to his military service. Nevertheless, the Board is bound by the AOJ's favorable findings under the AMA.

Upon reviewing the pertinent evidence, the Board finds that the evidence of record is in relative equipoise. In this regard, while the Veteran denied tinnitus in 2001 and 2004, as noted by the April 2025 VA examiner, the Veteran reported tinnitus in 2005 within one year of separation from service. A VA examination
 53 (1990).

In the April 2025 rating decision, the AOJ made favorable findings of in-service exposure to hazardous noise and a current diagnosis of tinnitus. Despite these findings, the AOJ denied the Veteran's claim because there was no medical nexus linking his tinnitus to his military service. Nevertheless, the Board is bound by the AOJ's favorable findings under the AMA.

Upon reviewing the pertinent evidence, the Board finds that the evidence of record is in relative equipoise. In this regard, while the Veteran denied tinnitus in 2001 and 2004, as noted by the April 2025 VA examiner, the Veteran reported tinnitus in 2005 within one year of separation from service. A VA examination from November 2005 noted a diagnosis of tinnitus. Further, the Veteran has competently reported a long history of tinnitus in VA treatment records.

When considering whether lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge, not medical expertise, as it comes to him through his senses. See Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology, where the determination is not medical in nature and is capable of lay observation. See Barr, 21 Vet. App. at 303. 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. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377. Here, the Veteran is competent to report the onset of his tinnitus because it comes to him through his senses. 

Accordingly, resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran's chronic disability manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. As such, entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted.

 

 

JOHN Z. JONES

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	C. K. Hall, 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.