Citation Nr: 18147016 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-28 465 DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence demonstrates that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1963 to June 1970, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing with the undersigned in February 2017. A transcript of that hearing has been added to the Veteran’s file. The Veteran asserts that his current bilateral hearing loss resulted from noise exposure in service, specifically from his work as a crewman on a tank in Vietnam. Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called “nexus” requirement. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the purposes of applying the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; or 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 from 0 to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss resulting from his military service. At the February 2014 VA examination, August 2017 examination, and a private audiological examination in February 2017, testing confirmed the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Given the Veteran’s military service, including working on a tank as a crewman and driver, exposure to loud noises during service is conceded. 38 C.F.R. § 1154. Thus, the remaining question is whether the hearing loss is related to the noise exposure during the Veteran’s military service. In the service treatment records (STRs) the Veteran reported in his June 1963 entrance examination that he did not have problems with his ears or hearing. The Veteran had a change in his hearing and the examiner reported left ear low frequency hearing loss during his May 1970 exit examination. The Veteran submitted to a Compensation and Pension examination in February 2014. At this examination, the Veteran was found to have hearing loss for VA purposes but the examiner reported that it was less likely than not that his hearing loss was related to his service. The examiner based this opinion on the Veteran’s discharge records showing normal hearing and the Veteran’s reports of post-service noise exposure. The Veteran did not report hearing loss or problems when he enlisted. It is unclear if the Veteran had a hearing loss disability at discharge as it is unclear which hearing test standards were reported on the separation examination report. His STRs do show that he had at least left ear low frequency hearing loss at discharge. In addition, the Veteran reported to the examiner that he hunted, rode a motorcycle, used a chain saw, and a lawn mower. At his hearing, the Veteran clarified that he hunted with a bow and arrow, or a crossbow, which would not produce the same noise exposure as if he used a gun. He reported to the examiner that he used a hearing protection device when using the chainsaw and lawn mower. In light of this information, the rationale given by the examiner is found to be limited in its probative value. The Veteran submitted to another Compensation and Pension examination in August 2017 for his claim of service connection for tinnitus. At this examination, the examiner reported that it was at least as likely as not that his bilateral hearing loss was a result of his service of being exposed to rifle and small arms fire. The examiner also reported that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to his service. The Veteran was subsequently granted service connection for tinnitus due to this examination. The Veteran also submitted a February 2017 opinion from a private audiologist. This audiologist recounted the Veteran’s military noise exposure without hearing protection in the artillery division. He reported that the Veteran did not report other noise exposure post-service. He opined that this frequent, prolonged high level of noise exposure leads to permanent hearing loss. The August 2017 VA opinion and the private audiology opinion are afforded more probative weight because they both took into account the Veteran’s exposure to noise while in service. The VA examination resulted in the Veteran being granted service connection for bilateral tinnitus. These opinions did not rely on post-service noise exposure noted in the February 2014 VA examination that was minimal and which the Veteran frequently used hearing protection devices. Although these opinions do not address the Veteran’s post-service noise exposure, the post-service noise exposure was minimal and the examiner provided adequate reasons that the Veteran suffered in-service noise exposure. As the August 2017 VA examination and the private opinion relate the Veteran’s hearing loss to his in-service noise exposure, the Board finds the probative, competent evidence demonstrate that his bilateral hearing loss is a result of his military service. Therefore, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Megan Shuster, Law Clerk