Citation Nr: 18150970 Decision Date: 11/16/18 Archive Date: 11/16/18 DOCKET NO. 15-02 701 DATE: November 16, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s current hearing loss had its onset during military service or is otherwise related to such service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 23, 1968 to May 28, 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2010 rating decision. In December 2014 the Veteran filed a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) challenging the regional office’s denial of service connection for his bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran did not request a hearing with the Board. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish entitlement to service connection, there must be 1) evidence of a current disability; 2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and 3) causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for certain diseases, such as an organic disease of the nervous system, including sensorineural hearing loss, may also be established on a presumptive basis by showing that such a disease manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309 (a) (3), 3.309 (a). In such cases, the disease is presumed under the law to have had its onset in service even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a). The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a). VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed Cir. 2009). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57-58 (1990). Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is due to noise exposure in service. The Veteran served in Vietnam and was subjected to constant artillery noise at base camp as well as noise on helicopters, without any hearing protection. The Veteran’s DD-214 establishes his military occupational specialty as a supply specialist and reflects commendations for his combat service in Vietnam. As such, it is highly probable that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise during service, and noise exposure is acknowledged. The auditory 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). Impaired hearing is considered a disability for VA purposes when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; 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. In his June 2010 VA Examination, the Veteran’s speech discrimination score, using the Maryland CNC word list, was 100 percent in his right ear, and 96 percent in his left ear. His pure tone thresholds in decibels were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 4000 RIGHT 55 50 45 65 LEFT 50 45 40 75 Accordingly, the Veteran has been diagnosed with a mixed bilateral hearing loss disability that meets VA regulatory criteria. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. As noted, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2010 when he was diagnosed with mixed bilateral hearing loss. Regarding the causal connection between the Veteran’s noise exposure in service and his current disability, the VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s hearing loss was related to service. The examiner noted that although there was evidence of degradation of hearing thresholds during the Veteran’s military service, his hearing was still within normal limits at the time of his discharge from the Army in 1971. The Veteran contends the VA examiner did not say what standard she used to determine his hearing was within normal limits at his discharge in 1971. However, as described in Hensley above, the threshold for normal hearing is 0 to 20 decibels, a range the Veteran’s hearing was within at discharge. The Veteran also contends the 15-decibel degradation in his hearing during service was significant. The Veteran’s hearing degradation was noted, yet the VA examiner still concluded the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits. The Board places much weight on this examination as the audiologist noted the relevant history, including the Veteran’s statements regarding in-service noise exposure, as well as conducting an in-person examination. The Board acknowledges the Veteran submitted a private hearing test from Costco from November 2014 showing the Veteran continues to have current mixed bilateral hearing loss. However, this record lacks any medical opinion linking the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss to his time in service. The only evidence potentially supporting a nexus is the Veteran's own opinion as to a causal relationship between his current hearing loss and his in-service noise exposure. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements that his hearing loss was due to events during service. He is competent to report in-service noise exposure, his current symptoms, and the history of those symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, while the Veteran believes his hearing loss is related to events during service, he has not been shown to have the knowledge and expertise required to be deemed competent to provide a nexus opinion on this issue, which requires complex medical knowledge. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, less weight will be accorded to the Veteran’s opinion as compared to the VA Examiner’s opinion. The Veteran's service treatment records show that his hearing was normal upon entering service. The records are also negative for complaints of hearing loss. The Veteran was given a hearing test as part of his discharge examination. The results showed normal hearing. (The Board acknowledges the finding of 15 decibels in both ears at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hertz, which under Hensley indicates some degree of hearing loss; however, the Board defers to the examiner's assessment of normal hearing, as that individual is a medical professional and such opinion holds more weight than the more generic finding in the case law.) Here, the Board acknowledges that it is possible that the entrance examination, conducted in 1968, was reported in standards of the American Standards Association (ASA) and not American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI). For reports dated prior to December 31, 1970, the Board will consider whichever method provides results most advantageous to the Veteran. The reasoning given by the examiner for finding that the Veteran’s hearing loss is not related to service was that, while there was a degradation of hearing in service, it was still normal at separation. The 1971 separation examination report hearing test results will not be converted. As such, the fact that they are considered normal by the examiner is based upon the correct evidence. In addition, while the 1968 results could be converted, the conversion would involve adding amounts to those contained on the examination report, bringing them closer to those reported at separation. As such, to the extent that the examiner noted the degradation of hearing, this would be only be less evidence of such a change. Therefore, the Board finds that there is no error in going forward and continuing to rely on the VA examination report. Although the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing loss disability is not always fatal to a service-connection claim, the lack of any evidence in the record showing the Veteran reported any hearing loss symptoms to a medical professional for more than 27 years after service is for consideration, and weighs against the Veteran's claim. Also, there is no competent evidence of record that links the Veteran's current hearing loss, initially demonstrated decades after service, to noise exposure in service. The Board, considering the entirety of evidence of record, finds the sum of it weighs against a finding of a nexus. The final criterion for service connection has not been met. (Continued on the next page)   Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to service. As such, reasonable doubt does not arise, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. St. Laurent