Citation Nr: 18148600 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 15-25 735 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.385. (2017) REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the Army from June 1989 to July 1992 and from October 1999 to April 2004. This case comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a November 1, 2018, hearing held before the undersigned at the Board’s Washington, DC, offices. This decision is being rendered prior to the production of a transcript of that hearing; given the favorable outcome, the Veteran is not prejudiced. Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), an alternative method of establishing the second and third Shedden element is through a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology if the disability claimed qualifies as a chronic disease listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a); sensorineural hearing loss is a qualifying chronic disease. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). According to VA standards, impaired hearing will be considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory 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 Board notes, however, that the threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Symptoms, not treatment, are the essence of any evidence of continuity of symptomatology.” Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 496 (1997) (citing Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 16, 19 (1991)). The Board notes that, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) from his second period of active duty service have not been located. A formal finding of unavailability of such records was made in November 2012 and the Veteran was informed of their unavailability at that time. When a Veteran’s STRs are unavailable, it has been held that there is a heightened obligation on the part of VA to explain findings and conclusions and to consider carefully the benefit of the doubt rule. Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The Veteran’s records document that he is diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss consistent with VA regulations. See May 2014 VA examination report. The Board concedes the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure based on the Veteran’s MOS as a combat engineer and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD). The Veteran’s first period of service entrance and separation examination reports were absent of any complaints, findings, or diagnoses of hearing loss. In November 2018, the Veteran testified that he noticed his hearing deteriorating while in service. He reported that he had to keep turning the volume up on communication equipment to hear his team leader. Although a VA examiner offered a negative nexus opinion, she failed to consider the Veteran’s competent and credible lay statements, or to account for the missing STRs. Based on the evidence of record, including the credible statements provided by the Veteran, he spent a high portion of his military career working in proximity to explosive noise while in active service, a setting in which he was exposed to considerable acoustic trauma and experienced loss of hearing acuity. As he now as a measurable disability, service connection is warranted. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Baxter, Associate Counsel