Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) Board decisions

The VA denied the veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus, concluding that there is no evidence linking his current tinnitus to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for a VA examination to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of any hearing loss pathology.

The veteran's tinnitus was found to have resulted from in-service noise exposure, and the Board granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his active service, including in-service noise exposure. As such, the claims for service connection are granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed disabilities of bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and rash are not related to service. Therefore, these claims have been denied.

The veteran's claim for a waiver of overpayment of VA education benefits was denied by the Committee on Waivers and Compromises. The Board found that the creation of the debt was due to the veteran's actions, and that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the unavailability of his service medical records and the need to obtain additional VA examinations.

The Board has determined that the veteran's tinnitus is not related to his service, specifically noise exposure during military service. The preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that the current tinnitus is linked to service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's tinnitus is not related to his active military service and therefore denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's tinnitus was not incurred in or aggravated by service and denied his claim. The issues of left and right leg disabilities, to include as secondary to service-connected flat feet disability, are remanded for further development.

The Board has found that the veteran's tinnitus and low back disability are related to his military service, warranting service connection for these conditions.

The veteran's claims of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are being remanded for further evaluation due to unclear medical evidence regarding the existence and etiology of these conditions.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims due to inadequate notice and examination, requiring further action including a supplemental statement of the case.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining private medical records and scheduling a VA examination. The veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are pending.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to the need for a VA examination by an ENT specialist to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.

The Board finds that an effective date of February 7, 1985 is warranted for the grant of service connection for tinnitus.,The veteran's claim for a higher rating for hearing loss was not factually ascertainable to have occurred within one year prior to March 12, 2004.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus, finding that it was not incurred or aggravated by service and is not related to his service-connected hearing loss.

The VA is instructed to obtain the veteran's treatment records from 1998 to 2004 and refer them for an opinion on whether his current hearing loss and tinnitus had their onset in service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including right knee condition, left knee condition, tinnitus, COPD/asthma, PTSD, bilateral hearing loss, diabetes mellitus, neuropathy of the legs and arms, and loss of use of a creative organ. The denial is based on lack of evidence linking these conditions to service or other presumptive exposure.

The appellant's service-connected bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus do not prevent him from engaging in substantially gainful employment, thus the claim for TDIU due to these disabilities is denied.