Citation Nr: 18141429 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 16-19 576 DATE: October 10, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. CONCLUSION OF LAW 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(a), 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1992 to November 2012. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013, Rating Decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. The Veteran argues that he currently suffers from bilateral hearing loss as a result of his active duty service. To support this contention, the Veteran argues, in his Appellate Brief, that the record contains objective medical findings to support a conclusion of service connection. The Veteran also argues that his hearing was impaired while on active service and that his Service Treatment Records (STRs) indicate that both hearing aids and a surflink assistant were issued. Additionally, the Veteran acknowledged that he read and understood the VA’s requirements for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and further acknowledged that, although he may have experienced hearing loss while on active duty service, he potentially does not “meet those requirements.” Lastly, the Veteran claims that he currently is experiencing problems with his VA issued hearing aids and surflink assistant, as well as expresses a need for replacement batteries for these devices. For issues regarding VA issued equipment and replacement batteries, the Veteran should reach out to his VA healthcare provider. To establish service connection, there must exist medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). For certain chronic diseases, such organic diseases of the nervous system, a presumption of service connection arises if the disease is manifested to a degree of 10 percent within one year following discharge from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). When a chronic disease is not shown to have manifested to a compensable degree within one year after service, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for the showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support a claim for such diseases; however, such continuity of symptomatology may only support a claim for those chronic diseases listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Board reiterates that organic diseases of the nervous system are considered chronic diseases and entitled to a presumption of service connection. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). The VA deems sensorineural hearing loss as among the organic diseases of the nervous system that are covered under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 264–65 (2015). Service connection for impaired hearing shall only be established when hearing status, as determined by audiometric testing, meets specified pure tone and speech recognition criteria. Audiometric testing measures threshold hearing levels (in decibels) over a range of frequencies (in Hertz). Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 158 (1993). Impaired hearing will be considered to be a “disability” when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran received his first audiological examination prior to his enlistment in February 1992. In the Veteran’s more than twenty years of service, he has received approximately eleven additional audiological examinations spanning from April 1992 through May 2012. For VA disability purposes, the Veteran received adequate scores for both ears on every one of those tests. In May 2012, the Veteran underwent a medical examination for separation. The separation examination contained a chart on which to report the scores for his audiological test; however, that chart is blank, and it is unclear what the results of that particular examination are. On his separation Report of Medical History, the Veteran reported, for the first time, that he noticed changes in his hearing and that he failed an audiogram. Post service, in April 2013, the VA provided the Veteran with an audiological examination for his claim for bilateral hearing loss. The results of that examination are as follows: Hertz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average Hertz Right Ear 5 10 5 10 20 11 Left Ear 5 10 0 30 35 19 The Veteran’s Maryland CNC Speech Discrimination score for each ear was 100 percent. Since his VA examination, the Veteran has been receiving regular treatment at a VA facility. From August 2013 through August 2015, those treatment records document that the Veteran currently suffers from sensorineural hearing loss. Those records contain neither an audiological test nor corresponding scores. The Board fully recognizes and accepts that the Veteran currently suffers from sensorineural hearing loss; however, for VA compensation purposes, the Veteran’s hearing loss must reach or exceed the thresholds established in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. See Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 158. There exists in the Veteran’s claims file no audiological examination with results that satisfy those disability requirements, and the Board appreciates the Veteran’s acknowledgment of VA’s specific criteria. Thus, the Board concludes that, for disability compensation purposes, the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 294; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d), 3.385. In sum, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Board is unable to find an approximate balance of the positive and negative evidence submitted to otherwise warrant for the Veteran a favorable decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Gilbert. JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Trevor T. Bernard, Associate Counsel