BVA Case 13-0540: Back

On appeal,the appellant contends that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for rejecting his testimony concerning the continuity of his symptoms after service.

Fountain's military occupation but denied service connection for tinnitus,finding no nexus between his current tinnitus and service.

The RO denied his claim to reopen,finding that no new and material evidence on the issue of nexus had been submitted.

Fountain filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD)in which he stated that his November 2010 statement should be considered new and material evidence.

Fountain's November 2010 and April 2011 statements were new and material evidence,but denying the claim.

The Board stated that the statements were new and material evidence because they suggest chronicity of symptoms in service and continuity of tinnitus after service, including providing a reason for the failure to mention tinnitus after service or to claim service connection for tinnitus for years after service and they offer an explanation for why he did not report or complain of tinnitus symptoms prior to his January 2009 claim.

The Board,however,determined that the weight of the competent evidence was against a nexus between his current tinnitus and the loud noise exposure during service.

The Board determined that the May 2009 VA audiological opinion was entitled to great probative value.