Citation Nr: 18156709 Decision Date: 12/10/18 Archive Date: 12/10/18 DOCKET NO. 16-63 979 DATE: December 10, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The weight of the evidence is against finding a nexus between the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and noise exposure during military service. 2. Resolving doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds the Veteran’s tinnitus first manifested in service and has continued since. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 1969 to January 1973. These matters come to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Presumptive service connection may be granted for “chronic diseases” if the disease manifests to a compensable degree within service or within the presumptive period of one year after separation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(3). Sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus are categorized as a chronic “organic disease of the nervous system.” 38 U.S.C. § 1101; 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz is 40 decibels or greater; 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. VA must give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in a case. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). VA must also determine the competency and credibility of the evidence of record, and determine the weight or probative value of the admissible evidence. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369 (2005). Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran contends that he has bilateral hearing loss due to his military service, specifically as a result of his time working around jet engines as an ordnanceman. Based on the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS), as documented in his DD-214, the Board concedes in-service acoustic noise trauma. An October 2015 VA audiological examination shows that the Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss is not related to service, including noise exposure. The examiner rationalized that the Veteran’s service treatment records show no complaint, treatment, hearing loss or significant changes in hearing thresholds greater than normal measurement variability. The examiner considered both the American Standards Association (ASA) and International Standards Organization–American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI) threshold conversions. The examiner cited a 2006 finding from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which concluded that a prolonged delay in the onset of noise-induced hearing loss was “unlikely.” Although the Veteran has current bilateral hearing loss and was exposed to noise in service, the weight of the evidence is against finding that the disability is related to service. The Veteran did not report any hearing loss in service or within a year of service. Moreover, the October 2015 VA examiner’s negative nexus opinion considered the Veteran’s current medical condition, as well as his medical history, and is based on a well-supported rationale. As such, the examiner’s opinion is more probative than the lay assertions from the Veteran and his wife. Therefore, the weight of the evidence is against finding a nexus between the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and service. The Board has considered the doctrine of giving the benefit of the doubt, under 38 U.S.C. § 5107 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, but does not find that the evidence is of such approximate balance as to warrant its application. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54-56 (1990). Service Connection for Tinnitus The Veteran contends that his current tinnitus symptoms are related to noise exposure he experienced as a result of his MOS. As stated previously, the Board has conceded in-service acoustic noise trauma. Although the October 2015 VA examiner found that the Veteran’s current tinnitus was not related to his military service, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements regarding the in-service onset and continuation of his current tinnitus are sufficient to establish service connection. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 271-72 (2015). The Board notes that during the October 2015 VA examination, the examiner indicated the Veteran reported that he could not recall the onset of tinnitus symptoms. However, the Veteran, in his September 2016 notice of disagreement (NOD) and December 2016 substantive appeal (VA Form 9) indicated that his tinnitus began in service aboard aircraft carriers. In consideration of the possibility of a reporting error in the October 2015 VA examination, the Board finds that the Veteran has consistently reported tinnitus symptoms occurring during service and persisting thereafter. Thus, the Board resolves doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that he has current tinnitus that was incurred in service. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Norwood, Associate Counsel