Citation Nr: 18145898 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 15-30 741 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is reopened. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A July 2001 rating decision denied entitlement to service connection for hearing loss based on the determination that there was no evidence that established a link between the Veteran’s hearing loss and military service. The Veteran was notified of that decision, but did not initiate an appeal, and new and material evidence was not received within one year of the rating decision. 2. Since the July 2001 rating decision, the Veteran submitted a July 2013 record from Dr. M.A.B. and an August 2015 annual hearing test record from Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune which indicate that the Veteran’s current hearing loss is related to his noise exposure during active duty service. Accordingly, the Board finds this new evidence is material as it raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim of service connection for hearing loss. 3. There is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability is related to his military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The July 2001 rating decision, which denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103 (2017). 2. The additional evidence received since the July 2001 rating decision is new and material, and the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). 3. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, bilateral hearing loss was incurred in active duty military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran contends that his current bilateral hearing loss is related to noise exposure as a mortarman and vehicle mechanic during his over 20 years of active duty service. See also DD Forms 214. A December 2013 QTC examination report shows the Veteran had a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The December 2013 QTC examiner opined that it is less likely than not the Veteran’s hearing loss is a result of an event in military service. The examiner noted the Veteran’s report of 21 years of exposure to noise from firing mortars, diesel engines, and power impact tools during service, and stated that noise levels associated with these activities are known to exceed safe levels of noise exposure and can result in hearing loss. The examiner stated a comparison of the Veteran’s physical examination reports during service and at retirement revealed normal hearing with no significant threshold shifts, and opined this suggests the likelihood of a post-service etiology of the hearing loss, the configuration of which is consistent with aging. However, the QTC examiner did not indicate any post-service noise exposures for the Veteran, or discuss the Veteran’s competent reports that he has worked only in office jobs since service. See July 2015 VA Form 9; May 1999 Veteran statement. The Veteran has submitted two medical opinions which are generally supportive of his claim. A June 2013 report of an audiological examination from Dr. M.A.B. notes the Veteran’s report of a 20-year military career with significant noise exposure from mortar fire and as a mechanic, which is consistent with the Veteran’s reports to the QTC examiner. Dr. M.A.B. diagnosed noise-induced hearing loss, which he opined is most likely due to the Veteran’s prior noise exposure as he now has a desk job. The Veteran has sought treatment for his hearing loss at Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune since December 2008. An August 2015 annual hearing test record states the Veteran’s long-standing history of high frequency hearing loss is from his over 20 years of service as a mortarman and heavy equipment mechanic. The Veteran’s reports of his in-service noise exposures are again consistent with those considered by the QTC examiner, and which the QTC examiner acknowledged can result in hearing loss. See also April 2013 Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune audiology clinic note; October 2009 Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune audiology clinic note; December 2008 Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune audiology clinic note. (Continued on the next page)   Accordingly, the Board finds the evidence for and the evidence against the Veteran’s claim is at least in relative equipoise, and so the Board affords the Veteran the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and finds there is medical evidence of record establishing a link between the Veteran’s noise exposure in service and his current bilateral hearing loss disability. Accordingly, the Board finds that a grant of service connection is warranted for bilateral hearing loss. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Delhauer, Counsel