Citation Nr: 18151657 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 17-55 672 DATE: November 20, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT Hearing loss disability was not manifest during service or within one year of separation. Hearing loss disability is not related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Hearing loss was not incurred in or aggravated by service and an organic disease of the nervous system may not be presumed to have been incurred therein. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served from September 1971 to September 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran declined a hearing on the Form 9 submitted October 2017. 1. Entitlement to service connection for sensorineural hearing loss. Generally, to establish service connection a Veteran must show: (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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The issue for the Board is whether the Veteran has hearing loss disability that is due to service. That determination of the existence of hearing loss disability is governed by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran asserts that he has hearing loss related to acoustic trauma in service, specifically that his artillery unit was constantly training with live fire, and that these high intensity noise levels cause his hearing damage. He has not indicated that his hearing loss has been present since service. Thus, he does not allege continuity of symptomatology. A May 2017 VA examination concluded that the Veteran has bilateral hearing loss disability, but that it is not related to his service. The examination concludes that there is a high probability that the hearing loss in the high frequencies is due to presbycusis – the hearing loss expected as a part of the normal aging process. While the Veteran does have an MOS code of 13A, indicating service as a field artilleryman, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a nexus exists between the Veteran’s hearing loss and the conceded in-service acoustic trauma. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the Board notes that hearing loss was first noted years after service and has not been related to service by any competent evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Again, even the Veteran did not assert it was present ever since service. He has simply asserted that his current hearing loss is related to artillery noise that occurred forty years ago. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has sensorineural hearing loss, which constitutes a chronic disease under 38 U.S.C. § 1101(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) the disorder did not manifest in service or within a presumptive period, and continuity of symptomatology is not established. He did not have characteristic manifestations sufficient to identify a chronic disease entity. Rather, hearing was reported as normal at the Veteran’s September 1971 enlistment examination, May 1973 separation examination, and a September 1974 national guard examination. The Veteran affirmatively reported no history of hearing loss at both the 1971 and 1974 examinations, and there were no related complaints of hearing loss for years following service. 38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran denied any hearing problems in service and the record does not reflect complaints or findings of hearing loss during the initial year following service. The Veteran was awarded a service connection for tinnitus in January 2012, and the examiner at the time stated that this disability can sometimes be secondary to hearing loss. However, the examiner specified that tinnitus can be triggered years after the exposure to acoustic trauma. In the same decision, hearing loss was denied due to a lack of medical evidence connecting the Veteran’s recent hearing loss to his active service. The May 2017 examination came to the same conclusion, and specified that the medical literature indicates that no retroactive hearing effects are expected to manifest after the acoustic trauma ends. In weighing the evidence, the Board finds that the medical evidence of record, considering the lack of any medical opinions supporting the Veteran’s theory, preponderates against the claim. The 2017 examiner’s opinion that there is no medical nexus between the Veteran’s hearing loss and his active service is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Board adopts the opinion for its reasons and bases, noting that the examiner has fairly considered the material evidence of record. Wray v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 488 (1995). The weight of the evidence is against concluding that the Veteran’s sensorineural hearing loss was incurred in service. The preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that any bilateral hearing loss is related to service. Therefore, service connection for sensorineural hearing loss is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S.W. Strike, Associate Counsel