Citation Nr: 18142927 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 15-07 159 DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was neither incurred in nor caused by active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (b) (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 January 1970 to October 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Board notes that in an August 2018 statement, the Veteran withdrew his hearing request and all issues on appeal via his representative. However, a September 2018 Appellate Brief continued to pursue the issue on appeal. Therefore, the Board will proceed with the appeal. The Board also notes that during the course of the appeal there were two additional issues, entitlement to service connection for bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities and entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis. In a December 2014 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for bilateral peripheral neuropathy. In the February 2015 VA Form 9, the Veteran only appealed the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Therefore, as the benefit sought for entitlement to service connection for bilateral peripheral neuropathy was granted in full, and the Veteran never appealed the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis following the issuance of the December 2014 statement of the case, the Board finds that these issues are no longer on appeal before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss Service connection will be granted if it is shown that the veteran suffers from a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, during active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). Disorders diagnosed after discharge will still be service connected if all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (2017); see also Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To establish service connection generally requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the laws administered by VA, a certain threshold level of hearing impairment must be shown in order for hearing loss to be considered a disability. Impaired hearing will be considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies at 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 Hertz is 40 decibels (dB) or greater; or when the auditory threshold for at least three of the frequencies at 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 Hertz are 26 dB or greater; or when speech recognitions scores using the Maryland CNC test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2017). The Board notes that the Veteran currently meets the threshold level of hearing impairment to be considered a disability for VA purposes. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss due to noise exposure in service. The Veteran’s DD 214 shows that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was light weapons infantryman. Therefore, the Board concedes noise exposure in service. Service treatment records are silent for any complaints of symptoms, treatment, or a diagnosis of hearing loss during active service. In a September 2011 VA treatment record, the Veteran reported difficulty understanding speech in the presence of background noise. The VA physician noted noise exposure in service, occupational noise exposure, recreational noise exposure, recent or recurrent ear disease, vertigo, familial history of hearing loss, head trauma, prior use of amplification, and tinnitus. In a December 2011 VA examination, the Veteran reported noise exposure in service specifically from explosives, artillery, and weapons. He denied using any hearing protection. Prior to service, the Veteran reported occupational noise exposure which included using a blowtorch to cut steel while working in a junkyard. Following service, the Veteran denied noise exposure in continuing to work for a car dealer. He reported exposure to a “Davenport” machine to make bushings for screws. He also reported exposure to lawn equipment while working in maintenance, and a cable burying machine while working as a laborer. He reported using hearing protection when using lawn equipment, but denied use of hearing protection in any jobs. The Veteran denied any recreational noise exposure. He also denied any family history of hearing loss. The examiner opined that it was not at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hearing loss was caused by or a result of an event in service. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s hearing was normal at discharge from service. The examiner said that hearing loss related to military service noise exposure was currently understood to have immediate (not delayed) onset. Therefore, there was no basis for claim of hearing loss being caused by or a result of service. In a June 2014 statement, the Veteran said in service he was affected with severe hearing trauma very often. He said his unit was responsible for clearing landing zones for their helicopters; this clearing was done by explosions. He said he also fired a weapon very often, and artillery fire was never far away. Also, he said that riding in military aircraft was one of the noisiest places he had ever been. He said that he did not use hearing protection. Overall, the Board finds that there is no evidence of record to suggest that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is related to service. The Board notes it has fully considered the evidence of record, to include the Veteran’s lay assertions. It also acknowledges the Veteran’s competence to report on observable symptoms, their onset, and notes that such statements are generally deemed credible. While the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s subjective belief that his hearing loss developed as a result of his noise exposure in service, the medical evidence does not support such a conclusion. The record does not reveal a nexus between the Veteran’s current hearing loss and his active service, to include noise-exposure therein. Further, there is no medical evidence of record showing that the Veteran’s current symptoms of bilateral hearing loss had an onset in service, within one year of separation, or are otherwise related to service. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) regarding reasonable doubt are not applicable. The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Saudiee Brown, Associate Counsel