Tinnitus: what evidence wins at the Board

For tinnitus appeals, how often the Board granted the issue when the record held each kind of evidence, and how often when it did not. Measured from the decisions themselves; every number carries its fraction.

What this is computed from: evidence types detected in the full text of 1,907,778 public Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions (va.gov/vetapp), joined to the issue-level outcome. The tables use only single-issue decisions with a clean parse in complete crawl years (1993–2025) — 852,152 decisions — so each evidence flag attaches to exactly one decided issue. A split is shown only when both sides have at least 30 decisions. Data build: 2026-09-02.

Service connection for Tinnitus (n = 11,715)

When the record had…Granted, with itGranted, without itDifferenceRemanded, with it
A medical source gave a positive nexus opinionEvidence in the record81% (1,189/1,472)72% (6,121/8,513)+9 pts6% (102/1,579)
Private physician opinion, letter or DBQEvidence in the record77% (1,130/1,466)73% (6,180/8,519)+5 pts7% (115/1,586)
Disability Benefits Questionnaire in the recordEvidence in the record77% (321/417)73% (6,989/9,568)+4 pts17% (88/507)
Third-party lay statements (spouse, buddy, employer)Evidence in the record72% (275/380)73% (7,035/9,605)-1 pts6% (23/404)
Service treatment records document the condition or injuryEvidence in the record66% (1,227/1,868)75% (6,083/8,117)-9 pts7% (145/2,029)
Service treatment records silent for the conditionEvidence in the record62% (2,853/4,595)83% (4,457/5,390)-21 pts4% (172/4,790)
Continuity of symptoms argued (38 CFR 3.303(b))Theory argued71% (4,027/5,710)77% (3,283/4,275)-6 pts1% (79/5,799)
Board hearing held or testimony takenProcedure76% (2,868/3,765)71% (4,442/6,220)+5 pts6% (248/4,126)
Social Security records in the fileEvidence in the record48% (63/132)74% (7,247/9,853)-26 pts9% (13/149)
Medical literature or treatise citedEvidence in the record65% (804/1,238)74% (6,506/8,747)-9 pts19% (297/1,537)
Functional loss / DeLuca factors argued (rating cases)Theory argued73% (120/164)73% (7,190/9,821)-0 pts7% (12/182)
Presumptive service connection discussedTheory argued70% (3,442/4,929)77% (3,868/5,056)-7 pts2% (93/5,036)
Secondary service connection (38 CFR 3.310) in playTheory argued69% (1,237/1,785)74% (6,073/8,200)-5 pts19% (436/2,254)
Combat service / 1154(b) in playTheory argued71% (1,352/1,908)74% (5,958/8,077)-3 pts3% (57/1,974)
A medical source gave a negative nexus opinionEvidence in the record74% (5,066/6,832)71% (2,244/3,153)+3 pts9% (694/7,537)
No nexus opinion of recordEvidence in the record37% (148/398)75% (7,162/9,587)-38 pts5% (19/419)
VA examination or VA medical opinion obtainedEvidence in the record73% (6,625/9,112)78% (685/873)-6 pts10% (1,005/10,162)
Board found a VA exam or opinion inadequateHow the Board read the record83% (2,405/2,892)69% (4,905/7,093)+14 pts19% (693/3,592)
Board found the VA exam or opinion adequateHow the Board read the record29% (151/523)76% (7,159/9,462)-47 pts2% (10/534)
Board found the veteran's statements credibleHow the Board read the record93% (2,984/3,209)64% (4,326/6,776)+29 pts1% (17/3,227)
Board found the veteran's statements not credible or inconsistentHow the Board read the record21% (109/525)76% (7,201/9,460)-55 pts2% (9/535)
Benefit of the doubt resolved in the veteran's favorHow the Board read the record98% (4,146/4,245)55% (3,164/5,740)+43 pts0% (5/4,254)
Preponderance of the evidence against / doctrine not applicableHow the Board read the record8% (154/2,044)90% (7,156/7,941)-83 pts0% (0/2,051)
Duty-to-assist error foundHow the Board read the record74% (168/226)73% (7,142/9,759)+1 pts68% (499/735)
Board ordered a new exam or addendum opinionProcedure72% (772/1,079)73% (6,538/8,906)-2 pts46% (946/2,039)
AMA favorable finding acknowledgedProcedure81% (1,586/1,958)71% (5,724/8,027)+10 pts10% (223/2,183)

"Granted" = share of issues decided on the merits (granted + denied); remands and dismissals are excluded from that fraction and shown separately. Fractions are the raw counts.

Increased rating for Tinnitus (n = 3,826)

When the record had…Granted, with itGranted, without itDifferenceRemanded, with it
A medical source gave a positive nexus opinionEvidence in the record11% (7/61)2% (64/3,621)+10 pts3% (2/66)
Private physician opinion, letter or DBQEvidence in the record12% (5/41)2% (66/3,641)+10 pts2% (1/46)
Service treatment records document the condition or injuryEvidence in the record21% (25/117)1% (46/3,565)+20 pts1% (1/138)
Service treatment records silent for the conditionEvidence in the record35% (23/66)1% (48/3,616)+34 pts1% (1/78)
Continuity of symptoms argued (38 CFR 3.303(b))Theory argued46% (17/37)1% (54/3,645)+44 pts0% (0/45)
Board hearing held or testimony takenProcedure14% (30/210)1% (41/3,472)+13 pts3% (8/277)
Medical literature or treatise citedEvidence in the record3% (3/93)2% (68/3,589)+1 pts1% (1/96)
Functional loss / DeLuca factors argued (rating cases)Theory argued29% (22/75)1% (49/3,607)+28 pts3% (3/91)
Presumptive service connection discussedTheory argued39% (17/44)1% (54/3,638)+37 pts0% (0/52)
Secondary service connection (38 CFR 3.310) in playTheory argued21% (32/149)1% (39/3,533)+20 pts2% (4/168)
Combat service / 1154(b) in playTheory argued10% (7/72)2% (64/3,610)+8 pts0% (0/83)
A medical source gave a negative nexus opinionEvidence in the record27% (17/63)1% (54/3,619)+25 pts8% (6/80)
VA examination or VA medical opinion obtainedEvidence in the record7% (63/853)0% (8/2,829)+7 pts2% (16/922)
Board found a VA exam or opinion inadequateHow the Board read the record11% (9/79)2% (62/3,603)+10 pts5% (5/102)
Board found the VA exam or opinion adequateHow the Board read the record9% (4/47)2% (67/3,635)+7 pts0% (0/48)
Benefit of the doubt resolved in the veteran's favorHow the Board read the record63% (26/41)1% (45/3,641)+62 pts2% (1/45)
Preponderance of the evidence against / doctrine not applicableHow the Board read the record9% (27/312)1% (44/3,370)+7 pts0% (0/316)
Board ordered a new exam or addendum opinionProcedure7% (10/145)2% (61/3,537)+5 pts7% (15/203)

"Granted" = share of issues decided on the merits (granted + denied); remands and dismissals are excluded from that fraction and shown separately. Fractions are the raw counts.

All Tinnitus issues, every benefit type (n = 18,305)

When the record had…Granted, with itGranted, without itDifferenceRemanded, with it
A medical source gave a positive nexus opinionEvidence in the record76% (1,242/1,628)44% (6,490/14,630)+32 pts6% (104/1,744)
Private physician opinion, letter or DBQEvidence in the record74% (1,164/1,572)45% (6,568/14,686)+29 pts7% (118/1,700)
Disability Benefits Questionnaire in the recordEvidence in the record75% (337/447)47% (7,395/15,811)+29 pts16% (89/540)
Third-party lay statements (spouse, buddy, employer)Evidence in the record70% (284/405)47% (7,448/15,853)+23 pts5% (23/431)
Service treatment records document the condition or injuryEvidence in the record61% (1,318/2,149)45% (6,414/14,109)+16 pts6% (149/2,338)
Service treatment records silent for the conditionEvidence in the record61% (2,906/4,764)42% (4,826/11,494)+19 pts4% (179/4,981)
Continuity of symptoms argued (38 CFR 3.303(b))Theory argued70% (4,066/5,793)35% (3,666/10,465)+35 pts1% (80/5,895)
Board hearing held or testimony takenProcedure69% (3,021/4,405)40% (4,711/11,853)+29 pts6% (276/4,887)
Social Security records in the fileEvidence in the record42% (70/166)48% (7,662/16,092)-5 pts7% (14/191)
Vocational expert or assessmentEvidence in the record54% (19/35)48% (7,713/16,223)+7 pts3% (1/38)
Medical literature or treatise citedEvidence in the record56% (815/1,460)47% (6,917/14,798)+9 pts17% (302/1,766)
Functional loss / DeLuca factors argued (rating cases)Theory argued59% (151/258)47% (7,581/16,000)+11 pts5% (16/296)
Presumptive service connection discussedTheory argued69% (3,487/5,038)38% (4,245/11,220)+31 pts2% (95/5,161)
Secondary service connection (38 CFR 3.310) in playTheory argued64% (1,332/2,080)45% (6,400/14,178)+19 pts17% (450/2,590)
Combat service / 1154(b) in playTheory argued67% (1,386/2,065)45% (6,346/14,193)+22 pts3% (60/2,148)
A medical source gave a negative nexus opinionEvidence in the record73% (5,131/6,989)28% (2,601/9,269)+45 pts9% (706/7,721)
No nexus opinion of recordEvidence in the record36% (152/423)48% (7,580/15,835)-12 pts5% (21/447)
VA examination or VA medical opinion obtainedEvidence in the record65% (6,934/10,747)14% (798/5,511)+50 pts9% (1,050/11,918)
Board found a VA exam or opinion inadequateHow the Board read the record81% (2,440/3,031)40% (5,292/13,227)+40 pts19% (705/3,766)
Board found the VA exam or opinion adequateHow the Board read the record27% (157/582)48% (7,575/15,676)-21 pts2% (10/595)
Board found the veteran's statements credibleHow the Board read the record93% (3,014/3,257)36% (4,718/13,001)+56 pts1% (18/3,281)
Board found the veteran's statements not credible or inconsistentHow the Board read the record21% (112/537)48% (7,620/15,721)-28 pts2% (9/547)
Benefit of the doubt resolved in the veteran's favorHow the Board read the record97% (4,226/4,352)29% (3,506/11,906)+68 pts0% (6/4,367)
Preponderance of the evidence against / doctrine not applicableHow the Board read the record7% (199/2,680)55% (7,533/13,578)-48 pts0% (0/2,694)
Duty-to-assist error foundHow the Board read the record59% (182/307)47% (7,550/15,951)+12 pts61% (510/837)
Board ordered a new exam or addendum opinionProcedure62% (799/1,279)46% (6,933/14,979)+16 pts42% (982/2,327)
AMA favorable finding acknowledgedProcedure81% (1,600/1,980)43% (6,132/14,278)+38 pts10% (223/2,206)

"Granted" = share of issues decided on the merits (granted + denied); remands and dismissals are excluded from that fraction and shown separately. Fractions are the raw counts.

Reading these tables honestly

Association, not cause. A positive nexus opinion appears in the records of granted appeals far more often than in denied ones. That does not mean any letter wins; it means the Board grants when the evidence supports the claim, and a nexus opinion is how that support usually reaches the file.

Appeals are not claims. Every decision here is an appealed denial. Grant rates at the Board say nothing about the share of initial claims VA grants.

Findings are outcomes in disguise. Rows under "how the Board read the record" — credibility, benefit of the doubt, an inadequate exam — describe how the judge decided, not evidence to gather. They are shown because they say which arguments the Board actually reaches for.

Detection is by text pattern. Each evidence type is found by reading the decision for finding-shaped language with negation handling; precision was read on samples before publication and is stated per feature in the method notes below. Expect a few percent of misclassified rows, not zero.

Which of these is missing from your file?

VetAid's free analyzer reads your decision letter and records, then ranks the evidence gaps by exactly these numbers — for your conditions, not the average.

Analyze my claim free →

See also: Tinnitus decisions · all conditions · outcome rates.