Citation Nr: 18157472 Decision Date: 12/12/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 18-48 442 DATE: December 12, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s pre-existing left ear hearing loss disability was aggravated by service. 2. The Veteran’s right ear hearing loss disability is related to noise exposure in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for left ear hearing loss disability, based on service aggravation, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1153, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.306, 3.385 (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for a right ear hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1976 to December 1979. In November 2018, the Veteran appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a travel board hearing. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing disability is granted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, 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- the so-called “nexus” requirement. See Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). A pre-existing injury or disease is considered to have been aggravated by active service if there is an increase in disability during service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progression of the disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (a). VA bears the burden to rebut the presumption of aggravation in service. Laposky v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 331, 334 (1993); Akins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 228, 232 (1991). However, aggravation is not conceded where the disability underwent no increase in severity during service based on all the evidence of record pertaining to the manifestations of the disability prior to, during, and subsequent to service. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (b); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 402 (1995). 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 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Court has held that “the threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 dB [decibels], and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss.” See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). The Court, in Hensley, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993), indicated that 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 does not preclude service connection for a current hearing disability where hearing was within normal limits on audiometric testing at separation from service if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a relationship between the Veteran’s service and his current disability. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). The Board finds that service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is warranted. The Board notes that the Veteran has a diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss disability. See VA examination, August 2018. Therefore, the remaining question is whether the hearing loss disability is related to noise exposure to service. In this regard, the Board notes that impaired hearing was noted in both ears at entrance examination in August 1976. In the left ear, the impairment rose to the level of a disability. Moreover, the August 2018 VA examiner has opined that the pre-existing bilateral ear hearing loss was permanently worsened as a result of exposure to high impact noise during active duty. Id. Therefore service connection is warranted. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Foster, Associate Counsel