Citation Nr: 18147294 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 253A DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having not been received, reopening of the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In an unappealed February 2013 Board decision, the Board found that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen a claim for bilateral hearing loss. 2. The evidence associated with the claims files subsequent to the February 2013 Board decision is cumulative or redundant of the evidence previously of record or is not sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has not been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a) (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from October 1967 to October 1970. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. Hearing loss The RO originally denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for left and right hearing loss in May 2005. The Veteran did not appeal that decision. Instead, the Veteran filed a claim to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss in September 2006. In an unappealed February 2013 Board decision, the Board denied the claim to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss because the evidence received since the May 2005 rating decision was not new and material. Specifically, the Board noted that the additional evidence submitted did not materially show that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in or caused by, or in the case of the left ear, aggravated by, his active military service or that it became manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active service, beyond what was already of record and considered in the last final denial. The Veteran did not appeal that decision. The evidence of record at the time of the February 2013 Board decision included the Veteran’s service treatment records, the Veteran’s lay statements, his October 2012 hearing testimony, VA and non-VA medical records, and a May 2011 VA examination, the evidence of record showed that the Veteran had bilateral hearing loss, and that the Veteran had continually asserted that his hearing loss began since 1970. The evidence that has been received since the Board’s February 2013 decision includes a June 2017 VA examination showing that the Veteran had bilateral hearing loss, additional lay statements by the Veteran indicating that the Veteran’s hearing loss was caused by service, and a January 2014 buddy statement from the Veteran’s friend indicating that he had the same noise exposure as the Veteran, but that he was granted service connection for his hearing loss disability. The Board finds the evidence received since the February 2013 Board decision to be cumulative and redundant in nature in that it continued to show that the Veteran had bilateral hearing loss, and that the Veteran continued to assert that his hearing loss was related to service. However, the evidence does not show that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in or caused by, or aggravated by, his active military service. Further, the new evidence does not show that the Veteran’s hearing loss became manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active service. Indeed, the evidence does not relate to the reason the claim was originally denied as there was no additional evidence submitted showing a nexus connecting the Veteran’s current hearing loss disability to his in-service noise exposure. Notably, the June 2017 VA examiner found that the Veteran’s left and right ear hearing loss was not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event in military service. Therefore, the evidence added to the record is not sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. Cannaday, Associate Counsel