Citation Nr: 1705282	
Decision Date: 02/22/17    Archive Date: 02/28/17

DOCKET NO.  15-39 906	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Vietnam Veterans of America


WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Veteran, Spouse


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Ivey-Crickenberger, Associate Counsel 


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from March 1956 to February 1959. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington.  The Veteran was afforded a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in January 2017.  

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2016).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2014).


FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had onset during service.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2016).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran asserts that service connection is warranted for bilateral hearing loss because he developed the condition due to in-service acoustic trauma.

Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical and lay evidence, with due consideration to VA's policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case.  38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of:  (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.  See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table decision).  

In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record.  A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology.  See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge).  Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if: (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition; (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis; or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.  Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent.  Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1376-77.

The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence.  Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001).  Indeed, in Jefferson v. Principi, 271 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the Federal Circuit, citing its decision in Madden, recognized that the Board had an inherent fact-finding ability.  Id. at 1076; see also 38 C.F.R. § 7104(a) (2016).  Moreover, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to weigh and assess the evidence.  Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992).

The May 2014 VA audiology exam indicates that the Veteran had bilateral hearing loss under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2016) and the Board finds that he was exposed to in-service acoustic trauma.  Further, his account of in-service noise exposure has been found credible by VA as service connection has already been established for tinnitus based upon such exposure and is consistent with service.

The Veteran asserts that his hearing has gotten progressively worse starting in service.  He is both competent and credible to testify regarding such observable symptomatology.  See January 2017 Board hearing transcript. 

The evidence weighing against a finding of nexus to service includes a May 2014 VA audiological examiner's opinion that his current hearing loss was not likely related to his exposure to noise in service.  Because the Veteran is competent to report onset of hearing loss symptoms and the Board finds that his account is credible, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted.


ORDER

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.




____________________________________________
STEVEN D. REISS
 Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals


Department of Veterans Affairs