Citation Nr: 18147872 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 17-40 591 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from November 1949 to November 1953. In October 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Travel Board Hearing in St. Petersburg, Florida. This decision is being issued under the “one-touch” program; a transcript of the hearing will be associated with the claims file at a later time. 1. Service connection for sensorineural bilateral hearing loss Service connection will be granted if it is shown that a Veteran has a disability resulting from an injury or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, to prove service connection, the record must contain evidence concerning: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In certain cases, competent lay evidence may demonstrate the presence of any of these elements. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that a disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). For claims for service connection for hearing loss or impairment, VA has specifically defined what is meant by a disability for the purposes of service connection. Impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz 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. However, the absence of in-service evidence of hearing loss is not fatal to a claim for service connection. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Evidence of a current hearing loss disability, i.e., one meeting the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, as noted above, and a medically sound basis for attributing such disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss, which he asserts began in service when he served as an aircraft jet mechanic on the flight line, and has been recurrent since that time. The Board notes his DD-214 lists his Military Occupation Specialty as 43153 (Airframe and Powerplant Repairman); military noise exposure is conceded. The Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss which meets the auditory threshold requirements established by VA. He reported exposure to extreme loud noise in service to include: weapons fire; jet engines; and reciprocating engines, all without hearing protection and has indicated that his hearing loss has been consistent from service until the present time. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his hearing loss and the Board finds his testimony credible. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, the first two criteria have been met. Further, the competent and credible medical evidence of record shows that his current bilateral hearing loss began during service. In August 2015 the Veteran was examined for hearing loss by a private physician. The physician conducted a thorough examination and diagnosed the Veteran with mixed hearing loss, bilateral. The physician opined, “I believe that acoustic trauma was a significant factor in the etiology of this hearing loss.” The Board notes that the Veteran testified he was a high school teacher after his time in the service and was not exposed to acoustic trauma. The Board finds this medical opinion is probative evidence, as the physician examined the Veteran, diagnosed bilateral hearing loss, and offered a medical opinion supported by a rationale. Thus, all three elements of service connection are established by the competent and credible lay and medical evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board notes that an April 2015 VA examiner examined the Veteran and provided a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. However, the examiner stated he could not determine whether the Veteran’s hearing loss was caused by or related to an event in military service, “without resort to mere speculation.” The Board observes that this opinion is wholly inadequate for adjudication purposes. Thus, the Board accords the VA examiner’s opinion no probative weight. Based on the foregoing, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Nelson, Associate Counsel