Citation Nr: 18151648
Decision Date: 11/20/18	Archive Date: 11/19/18

DOCKET NO. 15-03 286
DATE:	November 20, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to his inservice noise exposure. 
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 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 June 1971 to June 1974. The Veteran appeals an April 2014 rating decision from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) from Boise, Idaho.  
The Veteran did not request a Board hearing in his January 2015 VA Form 9.  The Veteran’s representative submitted an appellate brief in October 2018. 

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss
The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his time as a tank driver during service. 
Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease results in a present disability that incurred in the line of duty during active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby.  38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 
The Veteran’s DD-214 shows the Veteran served as an armor crewman.  According to the Veteran’s VA Form 9, the Veteran asserts that he was a tank driver, and was also exposed to various forms of gunfire during live fire exercises. The Board finds that the Veteran’s circumstances of service are consistent with exposure to loud noise.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a).  Thus, the claim turns on whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to his in-service noise exposure.

Regarding a nexus between the in-service event and the disabilities, the Board acknowledges the negative April 2014 VA examination.  The Board also notes the Veteran’s competent and credible lay statements.  The Veteran stated that he served as a tank driver, and was exposed to various forms of gunfire during live fire exercises.  See August 2013 Statement in Support.  He stated that he was not issued hearing protection.  Id.  The Veteran stated that her noticed hearing problems after service.  See January VA Form 9.  Further, a private audiologist, in July 2015, stated, “an audiogram was completed at the time of his visit which shows right moderate to profound high frequency sensorineural hearing loss and the left shows, moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss. This pattern of hearing loss for [the Veteran] is most likely a direct result of his military experience.”  Tellingly, the same private audiologist opined, a year earlier, that it was “more likely than not that his loss of hearing is related to his service time.”  See June 2014 Private Audiologist Opinion.  The Board notes that when the evidence is in relative equipoise, by law; the Board must resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant.  See U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinksi, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990).  Therefore, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted.      
   
JOHN J CROWLEY
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Timothy A. Campbell, Associate Counsel