Citation Nr: 1324013	
Decision Date: 07/29/13    Archive Date: 08/07/13

DOCKET NO.  10-23 025	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Texas Veterans Commission


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Veteran and his wife


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Kristi L. Gunn, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1951 to November 1953.  The Veteran also has served with the United States Army Reserves from June 1955 to July 1963.  

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2010 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas.  

In March 2013, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) during a travel board hearing at the local RO.  A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file.  

Additional documents located in the Veteran's Virtual VA folder have been reviewed in conjunction with the present appeal.  

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).


FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is attributable to acoustic noise trauma during his active military service.  


CONCLUSION OF LAW

Bilateral hearing loss was incurred in service.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5102, 5103, 5103A, and 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3.385 (2012).  


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

I.  Duty to Notify & Assist

As provided for by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2012).  In this decision, the Board grants service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  This award represents a complete grant of the benefit sought on appeal.  Thus, any deficiency in VA's compliance is deemed to be harmless error, and any further discussion of VA's responsibilities is not necessary.  

II.  Decision

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131.  Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.  Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).  

In regard to element (1), current disability, audiometric testing done at VA examination in January 2010 reflects that the Veteran has hearing loss for VA purposes.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.   

In regard to element (2), in-service incurrence, the Board finds that despite the fact that service treatment records for both the Veteran's period of active duty as well as his period of reserve service are silent for complaints or findings for hearing loss the Veteran's military occupational specialty of light weapons infantryman makes credible his assertions of being exposed to acoustic trauma in service.  This element is satisfied. 

The evidence relating to element (3), causal relationship, consists of a VA examiner's opinion in January 2010 and statements from a VA physician's assistant and a private examiner dated in April 2013.  The VA examiner stated that he was unable to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation and provided sufficient rationale for his inability to do so.  See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 389-91 (2010).  This opinion weighs neither for nor against the claim.  Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282 (Fed.Cir.2009).  This leaves the statements submitted in April 2013 as the only evidence upon which to decide the claim.  The Board notes that both statements concluded that the Veteran's hearing loss was at least as likely as not related to his period of service.  There is no contradictory evidence in the file.  

As all three elements have been satisfied, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted.  


ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.  



____________________________________________
JOHN Z. JONES
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals



Department of Veterans Affairs