Citation Nr: 18157532 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 16-62 099 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for recurrent tinnitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record reveals that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not shown in service or within one year after discharge from service, and the only medical opinion of record to address the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss weighs against the claim. 2. The preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s tinnitus manifested in service, is linked to service or is otherwise causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a)-(b), (d), 3.307, 3.309(a), 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force as a fighter pilot and tactical air control pilot from March 1982 to August 1990. Service Connection The Veteran has been diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus. He contends that these conditions developed because of noise he was exposed to while serving as a fighter pilot in the military. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for certain chronic diseases, including sensorineural hearing loss, will be presumed if they manifest to a compensable degree within one year following active military service. This presumption, however, is rebuttable by probative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Evidence of continuity of symptomatology from the time of service until the present is required where the chronicity of a condition manifested during service either has not been established or might reasonably be questioned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The applicability of the theory of continuity of symptomatology in service connection claims is limited to those disabilities explicitly recognized as “chronic diseases,” such as sensorineural hearing loss. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran currently has a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The Veteran asserts that as a fighter pilot, he was exposed to phenomenal noise. VA concedes the Veteran had a high probability to noise exposure based upon his job in the military. Thus, the question remaining for the Board to determine is whether the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss began during service or is at least as likely as not related to noise exposure in service. Evidence in the Veteran’ service medical file does not support the Veteran’s claim. Although the records reflect that the Veteran was treated for left and right ear problems in 1982 (right ear block), 1985 (left ear otitis externa), 1986 (partial ear block second to eustachian tube dysfunction), 1987 (sinusitis/earblock), 1988 (right ear infection and otitis media) and 1989 (right eustachian tube dysfunction), the service records also contain approximately eleven (11) audiological examination charts from either the Veteran’s medical examination reports or Hearing Conservation Data Sheets that all reflect that the Veteran’s hearing bilaterally was within normal limits. Particularly pertinent to the Veteran’s claim is an April 1990 Hearing Conservation Data record that shows the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits. This audiogram is significant since the Veteran separated from service four (4) months later. Regarding his separation from service, the Veteran submitted a statement in which he reports that during his separation examination, he was told by his Flight Surgeon that he had some hearing loss. He states that the Flight Surgeon asked him if he wanted to apply for disability; and the Veteran declined. Although the Veteran believed this conversation was documented in his service records, a review of his service file fails to reveal any notations of this conversation. Post-service medical records reveal that the Veteran was seen for a VA audiology consultation in April 2014, primarily due to complaints of difficulty hearing the television. At that time, he was diagnosed with bilateral high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. The Veteran’s medical provider indicated that the Veteran was expected to have limited difficulty with communication; and therefore, was not a candidate for amplification. In February 2016, the Veteran was seen for an audiological reevaluation. Again, his primary complaint was difficulty hearing the television. After testing, the Veteran was assessed as having bilateral mild high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. The audiologist noted that there was no significant change from 2014. Turning to the question of medical nexus evidence, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination in July 2014. The Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. In providing a medical opinion as to the relationship, if any, between the Veteran’s post-service hearing loss and noise exposure in service, the VA audiologist essentially opined that it was less likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was related to service. Her rationale was that pre-service audiological examination reports dated in February 1978 and September 1978 showed the Veteran’s hearing as being normal bilaterally. Subsequent exams from 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989 also showed hearing was normal bilaterally. Lastly, she noted that at the time of separation from service, an April 1990 examination showed hearing was normal bilaterally. After reviewing all the evidence of record, the Board finds the VA audiologist’s opinion to be both probative and persuasive. In this regard, the VA audiologist has specialized medical expertise and training in auditory matters, had adequate facts and data on which to base her medical opinions and provided a sound analysis and rationale for her medical opinion. Significantly, the Board also finds it probative that there is no medical evidence in the claims file that contradicts the VA audiologist’s opinion; much less any contrary medical opinion that supports the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The only other evidence of record supporting the Veteran’s claim are his own lay statements. The Board does not dispute the competency of the Veteran’s statements that he has experienced hearing problems he believes are associated with his service. The Board simply finds his statements to be less persuasive and probative when viewed in the context of the overall evidence in this case. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA medical opinion and VA medical records. In doing so, the Board sympathizes with the Veteran’s contentions. However, considering the foregoing, it must conclude that the Veteran’s post-service hearing difficulties and subsequent diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss are not related to or a result of service. Service connection for recurrent tinnitus During his July 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he experienced bilateral tinnitus, more noticeable in the right ear than the left ear. He indicated that his tinnitus was intermittent, occurring 2-4 times per week and lasting 1-2 minutes in duration. The Veteran reported that his tinnitus began approximately five years prior to the examination (i.e., approximately 2009). In providing a medical opinion, the VA audiologist found it less likely as not that the tinnitus was caused by or a result of military noise exposure in that the Veteran’s service separation examination revealed normal hearing bilaterally with no evidence of significant threshold shifts (STS) between the time the Veteran entered service in 1978 and when he separated in 1990. Additionally, the audiologist cited in her rationale that the Veteran himself reported that his tinnitus started in approximately 2009, almost 20 years after service. Post-service medical records dated in April 2014 support the July 2014 medical opinion to the extent that the Veteran reported during his VA audiology consultation that he had experienced intermittent tinnitus for the past 3 years (i.e., 2011). The Veteran has argued that the only reasonable cause of his recurring tinnitus is his exposure to jet engine noise while on active duty. He has stated that he first experienced tinnitus during his service in 1982 after leaving a T-38 engine test facility after a full power test. He went on to state that it subsequently became more frequent. In a separate statement, the Veteran reported that his tinnitus was a major problem in his life, mainly interfering with his sleep, as it kept him awake with the sounds of a high-pitched whistle or siren. Regarding the July 2014 medical opinion, the Veteran implies that the audiologist was hostile to him during the examination, apparently when the Veteran was relating his noise levels since separation and the effects his hearing loss has upon him today. Again, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to give evidence about what he sees and feels; for example, he is competent to report that he has had problems with his hearing and ringing in his ears. However, the objective medical data reflects that the Veteran had hearing within the normal range when he separated from service (and thus, no auditory condition that could be associated with the development of tinnitus); and even if the Veteran had tinnitus once in service in 1978, that condition apparently resolved such that he did not report developing it on a reoccurring basis until many years after he separated from service. Considering the foregoing, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements to be less credible and persuasive than the overall evidence in this case, to specifically include the July 2014 medical opinion and the post-service medical records. (Continued on the next page)   Because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim, his appeal for service connection must be denied. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Talpins, Patricia