Citation Nr: 18144780 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 18-44 171 DATE: October 25, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for sensorineural bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran’s sensorineural bilateral hearing loss is attributable to his period of active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for sensorineural bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 C.F.R. § 1131, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served from May 1955 to August 1958. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for sensorineural bilateral hearing loss is granted Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2016). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Generally, service connection requires: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical evidence, or in certain circumstances lay testimony, of in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999). Further, it is not enough that an injury or disease occurred in service; 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 Veteran contends that his hearing loss is due to noise exposure he experienced during service. Specifically, he noted his exposure to loud engines without protective hearing gear. According to his DD214 the Veteran’s military occupational specialty was “hydraulics tester,” thus, it is reasonable to assume he would have been exposed to engine noise during service. A VA audiology exam dated March 2016 confirmed the Veteran’s diagnosis of hearing loss. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 The Veteran provided a lay statement indicating that he was exposed to engine noise while performing maintenance and regularly complained to his Chief Petty Officer that he could not hear well. The Veteran further stated that he has continued to experience issues with hearing loss since service. The Veteran is competent to give a statement regarding what he experienced in service that led to his current condition, he is credible given that his account of the in service events has not been questioned, and his statement has probative value given its consistency and corroboration by the Veteran’s DD-214. The file also contains a private audiology report dated December 2015 detailing similar hearing loss issues. It should be noted that physicals dated May 1955 and July 1958 indicated that the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits by means of a whisper test. Such testing is not reliable, does not preclude the presence of high frequency hearing loss and does not provide frequency specific information. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the evidence shows that his bilateral hearing loss is started in service and has been continuous since service. The evidence shows a current diagnosis of hearing loss which the Veteran has reported began during service and has continued from that time to the present. The Veteran’s lay account of noise exposure in service is consistent with his military personnel records giving it credibility and probative weight. While the March 2016 VA examination stated that an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss would be speculative, such an analysis did not give due consideration to the Veteran’s account of the onset of symptoms in service and their continuity thereafter or to his report of noise exposure in service. There is no credible evidence in the record which would contradict the Veteran’s account, thus, his exposure to acoustic trauma is conceded. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). (Continued on the next page)   While there is no medical nexus opinion linking bilateral hearing loss to in service noise exposure, service connection may be granted based on continuity of symptomatology of a chronic disease, which includes sensorineural hearing loss, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a). As noted above, the record contains credible evidence of a continuity of bilateral hearing loss symptomatology beginning in service and continuing thereafter. Specifically, the statement from the Veteran indicates that his hearing difficulty began in service and continued thereafter. Therefore, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. K. J. ALIBRANDO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Luby, Associate Counsel