Citation Nr: 18142001 Decision Date: 10/12/18 Archive Date: 10/12/18 DOCKET NO. 16-08 700 DATE: October 12, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A preponderance of the evidence indicates the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is not etiologically related to service. 2. A preponderance of the evidence indicates the Veteran’s tinnitus is not etiologically related to service. 3. A preponderance of the evidence indicates the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus is not etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March to July 1975. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). The Board acknowledges that no VA examination has been conducted in this case to explore the etiology of the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus. However, as discussed below, the record fails to establish any objective etiological link between the condition and the Veteran’s active duty service. As such, the Board finds that an examination is not necessary in this case, as there appears in the record no plausible link between diabetes and any aspect of the Veteran’s active service. Service Connection Service connection may be established for disability resulting from diseases or injuries which are clearly present in service or for a disease diagnosed after discharge from service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires 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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Federal Circuit has held that continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) applies only to chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (2013). Additionally, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and associated tinnitus The Veteran carries a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, confirmed at a March 2015 VA audiological examination. That examiner indicated the Veteran’s tinnitus, which diagnosis is considered to be present based on self-reporting, was etiologically linked to the diagnosed hearing loss. The record shows the Veteran served on active duty for approximately four months. He has stated that he believes exposure to gunfire, mortars, and heavy equipment noise during his active duty service have contributed to his current hearing loss and tinnitus. The record further reveals that the Veteran worked in a textile mill for over three decades following his active duty service. He has acknowledged noise exposure related to this employment, but has indicated he used hearing protection at work. With respect to the etiology of his hearing loss and associated tinnitus, the VA examiner with whom the Veteran met in March 2015 indicated that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish any etiological relationship between service and the current disabilities. A review of the Veteran’s service records shows no evidence of hearing loss or tinnitus in service. The Veteran denied hearing problems and made no mention of tinnitus at separation, and no audiological testing was conducted at the close of the Veteran’s active service. No treating or examining provider has since suggested the presence of any etiological link between current hearing loss and tinnitus and any aspect of the Veteran’s service. Moreover, the Veteran’s service records do not reflect evidence of exposure to hazardous noise. Although the Board has considered the August 2014 treating provider statement indicating that the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure has contributed to his hearing problems, the Board notes that that assessment appears to be based entirely on the Veteran’s subjective reporting, and that the treating provider is in fact an endocrinologist. Accordingly, the Board has not afforded this assessment great probative weight. While the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s belief that in-service noise exposure contributed to his current hearing problems, absent any objective evidence to that effect, and given the intervening time period and nature of the Veteran’s civilian employment, the evidence cannot be said to be in equipoise in this case. As such, the claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus must be denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus The Veteran has averred that his diabetes mellitus was originally diagnosed in service and has continued since that time. However, the record indicates the initial diagnosis was furnished in early 1977, following separation from active duty service (during a period of inactive duty training for the National Guard,) and that it has been characterized as “juvenile onset diabetes,” suggesting its etiology is unrelated to service. (Continued on the next page)   VA and private treatment records confirm the Veteran has a longstanding diabetes diagnosis; however, no treating provider has explicitly linked the condition to any aspect of the Veteran’s active duty service. Further, the record is bare of evidence that the condition was aggravated or worsened in service or due to any in-service event. Critically, service records from the Veteran’s period of active duty service are altogether silent regarding the condition. In sum, there is no objective evidence in the record that the Veteran’s diabetes had its onset during the Veteran’s approximately four-month period of active duty, or that it is etiologically related in any way to any aspect of that service. Again, although the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s belief that his condition is etiologically related to service, the record simply does not contain any objective evidence to that effect. As such, the evidence in this case is not in equipoise, but preponderates against the claim for service connection for diabetes. Thus, the claim must be denied. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Department of Veterans Affairs