Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

Citation Nr: A26069980 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 250715-567083 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Board adopts the favorable finding in the July 2025 rating decision which granted entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the establishment of service connection for tinnitus are met. 38?U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had confirmed service from February 1980 to February 2020. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the July 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the direct review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2025 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. Id. The Board notes that in addition to the issue of service connection for tinnitus identified on the July 2025 VA Form 10182, the Veteran also identified the issues of (1) a 10 percent evaluation based on multiple, noncompensable service-connected disabilities; (2) service connection for incomplete paralysis of the right ilioinguinal nerve; (3) service connection for an inguinal hernia; and (4) service connection for a scar, status post herniorrhaphy. For issues one and two, the Veteran identified a March 2015 rating decision and for issues three and four, he identified a February 2015 rating decision. Significantly, the AOJ already granted all those claims in the aforementioned February 2015 and March 2015 rating decisions, and therefore similar to the issue of service connection for tinnitus, as explained below, there is no case or controversy with respect to those issues. Thus, these issues are not properly before the Board. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was a case or controversy with respect to any of those identified issues, these issues are still not properly before the Board. Although the Board may not dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely VA Form 10182, it may dismiss the appeal due to non-jurisdictional reasons, such as a procedural defect, where the claimant did not substantially comply with proper claims processing rules. See Ferko v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 262, 266 (2024) (stating VA can require a claimant to fill out a particular form and can dismiss nonconforming or untimely filings but a failure to follow claims processing rules does not affect the Board's jurisdiction). In the present case, the Veteran did not comply with the claims processing rules. He received notification of the February 2015 and March 2015 rating decisions granting the above-referenced claims. which included additional instructions if he desired review or appeal of the claims. The Board acknowledges the Veteran was erroneously sent a Board docketing letter in August 2025. However, the February 2015 and March 2015 notification letters of the February 2015 and March 2015 rating decisions explained that an appeal to the Board must be made within one year of the date of the decision notice letter in order to seek review. The Veteran did not submit a VA Form 10182 or any other request for review or appeal within one year of the February 2015 and March 2015 rating decisions despite receiving instructions regarding such. Moreover, the Veteran did not submit any motion for an extension to file a timely VA Form 10182, nor was any good cause given at the time of filing the VA Form 10182 to explain the untimeliness of the filing. As good cause has not been shown and the Veteran's VA Form 10182 was untimely, a dismissal of the appeal based on the Veteran's failure to substantially comply with the claims processing rules is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 20.402. Tinnitus In a July 2025 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for tinnitus. In his subsequent July 2025 VA Form 10182, the Veteran identified the issue of tinnitus and specifically indicated the area of disagreement with respect to this issue was "service connection." Based on the foregoing, the Board grants the instant claim, acknowledging any favorable findings in the July 2025 rating decision, which are binding on the Board in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. O'Connell The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.