Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran's tinnitus had its onset in service and is therefore granted service connection.

The Veteran's need for aid and attendance of another was found to be due to service-connected disabilities, specifically PTSD, duodenal ulcer disease, and tinnitus. The claim is granted from October 19, 2006.

The Board implicitly denied service connection for tinnitus in 1970 but reopened the claim and granted service connection for hearing loss. The decision is mixed as it did not explicitly deny service connection for tinnitus.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's PTSD is related to his service in Vietnam, and thus grants entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The hearing loss and tinnitus claims are remanded as the VA examination report did not comply with the requirements of the remand.

The Board found that the Veteran's statements regarding the onset and chronicity of tinnitus were not credible, leading to a denial of his claim for service connection.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the Veteran's current conditions are at least as likely as not related to his military service due to exposure to acoustic trauma during combat.

The Board found that the Veteran's right ear hearing loss and tinnitus did not manifest in service or within one year of discharge, and are unrelated to service. Therefore, service connection for these conditions was denied.

The Board found that the Veteran's preexisting bilateral hearing loss was not aggravated by active service and denied his claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.

The Veteran's request for hearings has been addressed, and the case is being remanded due to scheduling issues. Service connection claims are pending.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for scheduling an RO hearing. The issues of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus and entitlement to a total evaluation based on unemployability due to service-connected disabilities are pending.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current tinnitus is the result of acoustic trauma during active duty service, and thus grants service connection for tinnitus.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his military service, including exposure to noise from aircraft and communication equipment. As a result, the claims for service connection have been granted.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for consideration of an extra-schedular evaluation due to his service-connected disabilities, as he is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that his current conditions were not related to military service.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss, tinnitus, residuals of frostbite, an ocular disorder (vision loss), and abscesses on the buttocks. The evidence submitted did not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating these claims.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination to address his claims of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.

The Board has reopened the claim of service connection for tinnitus and finds that it is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran's military service. The appeal is granted.

The Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's currently diagnosed left ear hearing loss is related to his period of active service. As a result, the criteria for service connection for left ear hearing loss have been met.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including sleep apnea, severe allergic rhinitis, low back strain, chorioretinal scar of both eyes (previously characterized as healed central serous retinopathy of the left eye with xanthelasma), tinnitus, and sensorineural hearing loss, did not prevent him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation before May 4, 2010.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including a VA examination and further review of the evidence.