Citation Nr: 18142289 Decision Date: 10/15/18 Archive Date: 10/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-19 702 DATE: October 15, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record shows that the bilateral hearing loss is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an award of service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1951 to December 1955. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In August 2018, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket under 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2012). Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted The Veteran seeks to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss. He maintains that his hearing loss disability began shortly after service and had continued since. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 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 for certain diseases. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a),(b), 3.309(a) (2016); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2017). Generally, to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017); see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Specific to claims for service connection for hearing loss, impaired hearing is considered a “disability” for VA purposes only when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; when the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies 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 threshold for normal hearing is between 0 and 20 decibels, and higher thresholds show some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). If a Veteran serves 90 days or more of active, continuous service after December 31, 1946, and manifests certain chronic diseases - including sensorineural hearing loss - to a degree of 10 percent or more during the one-year period following his separation from that service, service connection for the condition may be established on a presumptive basis, notwithstanding that there is no in-service record of the disorder. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). There is no dispute that the Veteran has a current bilateral sensorineural hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulations. The private audiometric Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) dated in January 2012 reflects that the Veteran has auditory thresholds 40 decibels and above in both ears at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz. Also, there is no dispute that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise during service. His DD Form 214 reflects that his most significant duty assignment was with the bomb squad. The Veteran competently and credibly provided statements that he also was an aerial gunner/turret gunner mechanic “with lots of flight time.” He flew B-36 planes and other planes with six propellers and four jets, without any hearing protection and was exposed to “high amounts of aircraft engine and propeller noise.” The Board finds that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise in service. The Veteran is competent to provide statements concerning the onset and diminished hearing since such symptoms are observable by a layperson. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). The Board finds that his statements that his hearing loss had its onset shortly after leaving service are credible. The Board acknowledges that the record is absent an audiology examination upon entrance to service. However, the record shows that the Veteran underwent a whispered voice test at the time of his separation, in December 1955. The whispered voice test revealed 15/15, normal hearing in both ears. However, whispered/spoken voice tests are unreliable and cannot be considered as probative evidence that hearing loss did or did not occur. The Veteran has continuously held that his hearing loss began soon after service and he has experienced the continuity of symptoms since then. He has identified no other concurrent causes for his hearing loss disability. As hearing loss is a chronic condition as outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a), the theory of the continuity of symptomatology is applicable. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a), (b) (2017); Walker, 708 F.3d 1331. The Board finds the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his hearing loss, to be both competent and credible. Thus, a grant based on the continuity of symptomatology is warranted for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2017). The appeal is, therefore, granted. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Stevens, Associate Counsel