Citation Nr: 18156899 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 15-03 258 DATE: December 11, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has had, at worse, Level III hearing impairment in the right ear and Level III hearing impairment in the left ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met or approximated. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.385, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1953 to May 1956. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York. In October 2017, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the proceeding is associated with the electronic claims file. In January 2018, the Board remanded the case for further development. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with its remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). The Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss has been assigned a noncompensable rating. The Veteran seeks a compensable disability rating for his hearing loss. Disability evaluations are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities to the Veteran’s current symptomatology. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In evaluating hearing loss impairment, disability ratings are derived by a mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are performed. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). Hearing loss evaluations range from noncompensable (zero percent) to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity, as measured by controlled speech discrimination tests, in conjunction with the average hearing threshold, as measured by puretone audiometric tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz (Hz). Under Diagnostic (DC) Code 6100, Table VI, “Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination,” assigns a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based on a combination of the percent of speech discrimination (horizontal rows) and the puretone threshold average (vertical columns). The Roman numeral designation is located at the point where the percentage of speech discrimination and puretone threshold average intersect. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(b). Table VII, “Percentage Evaluations for Hearing Impairment,” is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal rows represent the ear having the better hearing, and the vertical columns represent the ear having the poorer hearing. The percentage evaluation is located at the point where the row and column intersect. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(e). The Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination in April 2013. The Veteran’s pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 3000 Hz 4000 Hz RIGHT 25 25 30 35 LEFT 30 25 40 45 Speech audiometry, using the Maryland CNC test, revealed speech recognition ability of 80 percent in the right ear and 80 percent in the left ear. The examination resulted in puretone threshold averages of 28.75 decibels for the right ear and 35 decibels for the left ear. Applying the criteria for evaluating hearing loss to the findings results in a designation of Level III in the right ear and Level III in the left ear. Using those Roman numeral designations and Table VII to obtain a percentage evaluation results in a noncompensable rating. The Veteran underwent a VA audiological evaluation in March 2018. The examination revealed audiometry results as follows: 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 3000 Hz 4000 Hz RIGHT 20 25 40 45 LEFT 20 25 50 50 Speech recognition testing using the Maryland CNC test revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear. The average puretone threshold was 32.5 decibels for the right ear and 36.25 decibels for the left ear. Applying the above results to the applicable legal criteria, the Veteran’s hearing impairment levels correspond to Level I in the right ear and Level I in the left ear under Table VI. A Level I for the right ear, combined with a Level I for the left ear, also results in a noncompensable rating. In short, the results of audiological testing indicate, at worse, there is Level III hearing impairment in the right ear and Level III hearing impairment in the left ear, which does not warrant a compensable rating. Moreover, none of the audiological findings qualify as an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, as the Veteran at no point during the appellate period had puretone thresholds of 55 decibels or more at each of the four specified frequencies or a puretone threshold of 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hz in either ear. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements regarding the severity of his hearing loss throughout the pendency of this appeal. The Veteran is competent to report matters of which he has personal knowledge, such as difficulty hearing. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). However, while the Veteran is competent to describe the severity of his hearing loss, he is not competent to provide specific audiometric levels, as he has not been shown to possess the requisite training or other credentials needed to render such an opinion. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, his lay assertions are not considered more persuasive than the objective clinical findings which, as indicated above, do not support assignment of a compensable rating for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss at any point pertinent to this appeal. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding a compensable rating for the Veteran’s hearing loss at any point during the appellate period. The April 2013 and March 2018 VA examination audiometric results are probative and valid for rating purposes. The results include both puretone thresholds and speech discrimination testing using the Maryland CNC test as well as reflect the severity of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss at the time.   The Board finds that the evidence is not in equipoise, so the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Accordingly, the Veteran’s claim for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Robinson, Associate Counsel