Citation Nr: 18141317 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 15-36 461 DATE: October 10, 2018 ORDER Service Connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service Connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is connected to service, to include under a continuity of symptomology. 2. The probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s tinnitus is connected to service, to include under a continuity of symptomology. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from July 1965 until May 1967. Service Connection Establishing service connection requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases, such as organic diseases of the nervous system, which include sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus, will be presumed related to service if they were noted as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if continuity of the same symptomatology has existed since service, with no intervening cause. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a). 1. Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for hearing loss. Specifically, he contends that he was exposed to noise, including helicopters and artillery fire, in Vietnam. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has bilateral hearing loss that meets the minimum standard under VA regulations, and evidence shows that noise trauma in Vietnam occurred, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). VA treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss until August 2012, decades after his separation from service. The Veteran did report mild hearing loss when he established care with the VA in March 2009. While the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of hearing loss intermittently since service, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of bilateral hearing loss. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized knowledge. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, the February 2013 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including noise exposure from helicopters and artillery fire. The rationale was there was no threshold shift from entry to separation or evidence of a noise injury at the time of separation. The Veteran asserts an audiological examination was never completed upon separation; however, there are audiological examination results on his May 1967 separation exam. Furthermore, the Veteran denied any history of hearing loss on his May 1967 Report of Medical History at separation. This is a signed, sworn document completed by the Veteran at the time of his separation. As it is contemporaneous evidence, the Board finds that it is highly probative with regard to whether the Veteran was experiencing hearing loss at the time of his separation. It is afforded more weight on this matter than the Veteran’s recently statements asserting that he first experienced hearing loss during service. As such, continuity of symptomatology is not shown with regard to hearing loss. Regarding a determination of whether the Veteran’s hearing loss is otherwise related to service, the Board finds that the examiner’s opinion is more probative than that of the Veteran. The examiner has audiological expertise and experience that the Veteran is not shown to have. The opinion contained a rationale based upon the evidence contained in the claims file. The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). It outweighs the opinion of the Veteran. As such, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. 2. Service Connection for Tinnitus The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for tinnitus. He reported to the February 2013 VA examiner that the ringing in his ears began “before he was married, at the age of 30,” approximately 8 years after his separation from service. As stated above, the Veteran was exposed to in-service noise. As such, the first two elements of service connection are met. Shedden. As for nexus, the record contains conflicting medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran’s tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including noise exposure. The February 2013 VA examiner opined that it was not. The rationale was that there was no indication of noise injury at separation. The VA examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). In his Form 9, the Veteran contends that his audiologist suggested she would grant tinnitus because she believes any Veteran with tinnitus who has served in a combat zone deserves service connection; however, there is no indication that the audiologist in the Veteran’s statement came to her conclusion after reviewing the Veteran’s claims file. Therefore, even if the Board could properly assess the opinion the Veteran reported from his audiologist, which is difficult to do when filtered through the Veteran’s statements, the Board finds that the opinion provided by the February 2013 VA examiner is more probative. The opinion provided by the Veteran’s audiologist, as conveyed by the Veteran, contains no rationale that is specific to the Veteran. Conversely, the opinion provided by the February 2013 VA examiner is specific to the Veteran and shows that a review of the claims file was conducted. The rationale is based on this review and is consistent with the evidence in the file. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the February 2013 VA examiner’s opinion. Service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Samantha N. Fournier, Law Clerk