Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) Board decisions

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to his service, as there was no evidence of such conditions in service or within one year postservice. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the nature and etiology of the appellant's hearing loss and tinnitus, specifically whether they are related to noise exposure during active duty training in the National Guard.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus of the left ear was denied. The RO granted service connection for scars of the forehead, left eyebrow, nose, and chin with a 0 percent rating effective June 22, 2004. However, none of these issues were rated as compensable.

The Board has granted service connection for tinnitus and assigned a 10 percent disability rating. The Veteran's bilateral pes planus is rated at 10 percent, while his right plantar fasciitis remains noncompensable.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are at least as likely as not related to his in-service noise exposure, granting service connection for both conditions.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss are related to his military service, granting his claims for these conditions.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding no evidence of a nexus between these conditions and his active duty service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus is granted. The Board finds that the Veteran has tinnitus that was incurred during his active military service as a result of exposure to loud noises in service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to his military service, as there is no evidence of hearing loss or tinnitus during service or within one year after service. The VA examination did not find a link between current hearing loss and tinnitus and service.

The Board has determined that further development is necessary before a decision can be made regarding the Veteran's claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, but denied his claims for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, left foot disorder, and skin disorders (claimed as dermatophytosis).

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities (PTSD, bilateral tinnitus, and erectile dysfunction secondary to PTSD) render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board found no evidence linking the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and degenerative bone and disc disease of the lumbar spine to his active service. The appeal was denied.

The Board has granted service connection for peripheral vascular disease as secondary to diabetes mellitus, finding that the Veteran's current condition is aggravated by his service-connected diabetes. The claim for tinnitus was denied due to lack of evidence linking it to service.

The Veteran's claim of service connection for tinnitus was denied as he does not have the condition. The claim of service connection for hearing loss is pending and will be addressed in a separate remand.

The Board found that the Veteran's tinnitus, hypertension, erectile dysfunction, and sleep disorder were not related to his military service or any service-connected condition. The claims for these conditions were denied.

The Board has determined that the appellant's bilateral tinnitus is related to his military service and grants the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his military service, while bilateral hearing loss was not incurred or aggravated by active service.

The Veteran's appeal is denied as there is no evidence of a current disability related to service, and the Board finds that his hearing loss does not meet VA rating criteria for compensation purposes.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and providing a supplemental opinion from an audiological examiner.