Citation Nr: 18154565 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-25 948 DATE: November 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to the Veteran’s combat service in Vietnam as a light weapons infantryman. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1966 to April 1968, including service in Vietnam as a light weapons infantryman for which he received the Combat Infantryman Badge, Vietnam Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars, Purple Heart, among other Decorations. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Affairs (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017); see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a “competent” source. Second, the Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308 (2007). Third, the Board must weigh the probative value of the evidence in light of the entirety of the record. A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017). When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 4 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for bilateral hearing loss. Specifically, the Veteran contends that the hearing loss that he currently suffers from is the result of the same in-service acoustic trauma, which caused his service-connected tinnitus. Impaired hearing will be considered a disability for VA purposes when the auditory thresholds in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz (Hz) are 40 decibels or more; or when the 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. Pure tone threshold levels on February 2015 VA examination reflected bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Therefore, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss either began during active service, or is etiologically related to an in-service disease or injury. The Board finds that competent, credible, and probative evidence establishes that that Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. In a May 2015 NOD, the Veteran contended that while in Vietnam, he was exposed to gunfire, explosions, mortar fire, and grenades. In a May 2016 VA Form 9, the Veteran contended that upon separation, he was not provided a hearing examination and stated that his exposure to light and heavy weapons fire caused his bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran’s service treatment records reveal that the Veteran entered service with normal hearing. In his February 1968 separation examination, no numeric designations of hearing impairment were recorded. Here, the Board finds that the Veteran experienced an in-service injury, exposure to hazardous noise, in combat in Vietnam. The Board finds the Veteran’s reports of exposure to hazardous noise due to his MOS as a light weapons infantryman in combat in Vietnam, to be competent and credible. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that laypersons are competent to report lay observable symptoms and information of which they have personal knowledge). Here, the Veteran's service personnel and treatment records indicate that his MOS was as a light weapons infantryman and that he is a recipient of the Purple Heart, Vietnam Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars, and Combat Infantryman Badge. Thus, the evidence reflects that he engaged in combat with the enemy and his noise exposure descriptions are consistent with the circumstances and hardships of such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (b). The Veteran has also asserted that he has had continuous symptoms of bilateral hearing loss since service. The Board finds the Veteran competent and credible with regard to his claim of experiencing symptoms of bilateral hearing loss in service and continuity of symptoms since service. There is evidence that the Veteran had noise exposure in service and his assertion that the bilateral hearing loss began during service is consistent with the circumstances of service. At the February 2015 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran was a light weapons infantryman during his military service and that his MOS has a high probability of noise exposure. The examiner also opined that the Veteran’s current hearing loss was less likely than not related to his service. The rationale provided for the opinion was that the Veteran’s February 1968 separation examination indicated normal hearing with no significant shift in threshold bilaterally. While the February 2015 VA examiner did not find that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to service, the Board finds the competent and credible lay statements regarding onset of bilateral hearing loss in service to be more probative than the examiner’s findings. First, no numeric designations of hearing impairment were included in the Veteran’s separation examination, which the examiner based the opinion upon. Secondly, the examiner did not consider any of the Veteran’s lay statements upon examination. Lastly, the Veteran is competent to report in-service onset of his hearing loss symptoms, and the Board finds his reports credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, the Veteran’s reports of extensive in-service noise exposure are supported by his DD Form 214 and service treatment records, which indicate that he served as a light weapons infantryman. In sum, the Veteran has been diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss, and was exposed to hazardous noise, as indicated by his MOS, during his combat service. Further, the Veteran is currently service-connected for tinnitus based on the same in-service noise exposure. The Board also finds the Veteran’s statements that he has been experiencing hearing loss since service to be competent and credible. Therefore, his statements have more probative value than those of the February 2015 examiner’s opinion. As such, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tiffany N. Hanson, Associate Counsel