BVA Case 10-2421: Ptsd

Gill had not submitted new and material evidence with regard to his claim for benefits for tinnitus and therefore declining to reopen that claim.

In conducting a de novo review, the Board determined that the April 2008 VA audiology examiner's diagnosis of tinnitus constituted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen Mr.

However,in assessing this claim on the merits, the Board concluded that entitlement to benefits for tinnitus was not warranted.

In this regard, the Board noted that there was no indication in Mr.

Finally,the Board found that the only medical nexus opinion of record was that offered by the VA audiologist following the April 2008 examination and that this opinion,which the Board found to be of significant probative value, was unfavorable.

Based on all of this evidence,the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence weigh[ed]against [ Mr.

To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.

First,he contends that the Board failed to explain why it was treating his tinnitus claim different than the other claims that were adjudicated in the same Board decision,including his reopened claim for hearing loss and his claim for sleep apnea (both of which were remanded),as 4 well as his claim for post-traumatic stress disorder that,on appeal,involved only the establishment of an appropriate initial disability rating.