Citation Nr: 18140341
Decision Date: 10/02/18	Archive Date: 10/02/18

DOCKET NO. 16-25 228
DATE:	October 2, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral hearing loss began during active service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active service from March 1963 to February 1966.
The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss had its onset during active service.
The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss that began during active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).
A January 2016 VA examination shows that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss.  While the VA examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s hearing loss began in service, the Board finds that the rationale provided to support this opinion is of little persuasive value. Although the VA examiner stated that there was no significant threshold shift to demonstrate hearing loss in the Veteran’s service treatment records, from entrance examination to separation examination, such a finding conflicts with a previous VA examination. On December 2015 VA examination, the examiner found that the Veteran’s service treatment records showed a significant threshold shift during service, noting that a threshold shift of 10 decibels across three frequencies was sufficient. Given this inconsistency in the record, the Board provides the Veteran with the benefit of the doubt and finds that there was evidence of hearing loss during service. Moreover, the record demonstrates that the Veteran’s military duties as a Construction Equipment Engineer were the kind that would have exposed him to significant noise exposure. The Veteran has described the type of noise exposure that he experienced, and such is consistent with his service. 
(Continued on the next page)
 
Accordingly, because there is evidence of in-service acoustic trauma and hearing loss, and there is a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, the Board weighs the evidence in the Veteran’s favor and finds that the medical and lay evidence supports the conclusion that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted.
  
M.E. Larkin
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	R. Erdheim, Counsel