Citation Nr: 18157643 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-62 646 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss disability did not have onset during active service or within one year of service discharge and is not otherwise related to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the Army from May 1966 to February 1968 and in the Navy from April 1968 to January 1970. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 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. For certain chronic disorders, including sensorineural hearing loss, service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis if the disease is manifested to a compensable degree within one year following service discharge. Even where service connection cannot be presumed, service connection may still be established on a direct basis. The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability as a result of active service. Specifically, the Veteran’s asserts that his bilateral hearing loss disability is a result of in-service noise exposure from his occupational specialties as a percussion player and pipefitter, as well as due to his qualification as a marksman on the rifle range. Service treatment records do not document any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of hearing loss. The Veteran’s December 1965 enlistment examination and January 1968 separation examination for the Army each document normal clinical evaluations of the Veteran’s ears, audiometric results that do not qualify as disabling per VA regulation, and no notation of a hearing loss defect or disability. Additionally, the Veteran specifically denied a history of hearing loss within the concurrent Reports of Medical History. Similarly, the Veteran’s April 1968 enlistment examination for the Navy documents a normal clinical evaluation of ears, audiometric results that do not qualify as disabling per VA regulation, and no notation of a hearing loss defect or disability. The Veteran again denied any ear problems within a concurrent report of medical history. The Veteran’s December 1969 Navy separation examination likewise documents a normal clinical evaluation of the Veteran’s ears with a normal bilateral whisper test, but no documented audiometric results, and no notation of a hearing loss defect or disability. Physical examinations following the Veteran’s active duty that were performed while the Veteran was in the Army Reserves in January 1973 and June 1974 also document normal clinical evaluations of the Veteran’s ears, audiometric results that do not qualify as disabling per VA regulation, and no notation of a hearing loss defect or disability. In fact, in the June 1974 Report of Medical Examination, the examiner wrote that there were “no physical defects.” In the February 1973 and June 1974 Reports of Medical History completed by the Veteran, he specifically denied ever having or having then “hearing loss” on both forms. As to the first element of a service connection claim, a current disability, the Board finds that a post-service January 2016 VA examination and a May 2016 private evaluation each document a bilateral hearing loss disability during the pendency of the Veteran’s claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2017). Significantly, however, the probative evidence of record does not otherwise document that bilateral sensorineural hearing loss had its onset during the one-year period from service discharge in January 1970 and, as such, presumptive service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is not warranted. Regarding the in-service element of a direct service connection claim, the Board is mindful that although the evidence of record fails to indicate any hearing loss within the relevant auditory thresholds during service, the absence of in-service evidence of hearing loss is not fatal to a claim for service connection. Competent evidence of a current hearing loss disability and a medically sound basis for attributing such disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss. Moreover, given the Veteran’s military occupational specialties, the Board finds that there is a high probability of noise exposure during his active service. However, following a review of the evidence of record, and as discussed below, the Board finds that the preponderance of evidence weighs against the finding of a nexus between the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability and his active service. Upon VA examination in January 2016, the VA examiner diagnosed bilateral hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulation. However, following the hearing evaluation and a review of the Veteran’s claims file, including his medical records and reported history, the examiner concluded that such hearing loss was not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of military service. The examiner reasoned that although there was a high probability of noise exposure given the Veteran’s military occupational specialties, the Veteran’s entrance and separation examinations showed normal hearing bilaterally; moreover, since his separation from active service in 1970, there had been no earlier medical diagnosis or treatment for hearing loss to support the claim of hearing loss as a result of noise exposure during service. The Board finds that the January 2016 VA audiology examination report provides probative evidence that weighs against the Veteran’s claim, as the examiner provided a reasoned rationale for his negative nexus opinion regarding the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability. In contrast, the Veteran submitted a December 2016 hearing loss disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) completed by a private physician wherein the physician concluded that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability was at least as likely as not caused by or a result of active service, based upon the Veteran’s reports of noise exposure to gunfire and explosions, engine room noise, and jet engine noise. Notably, the private physician’s opinion was not based upon a review of the Veteran’s claims file, including service treatment records which document normal hearing, bilaterally, in service and in the years following active service and document the Veteran denying hearing loss three and four years following service discharge. Moreover, the physician’s supporting rationale appears to be based solely upon the Veteran’s report of in-service noise exposure. As discussed above, this element has already been conceded by the Board; however, it is significant that the physician’s nexus opinion does not offer any other rationale for connecting such in-service noise exposure to the Veteran’s current hearing loss disability, nor does it reconcile his finding of a nexus to service with the absence of any objective hearing loss for decades after separation from active service. As such, the Board affords less probative value to the December 2016 private nexus opinion. Additionally, the Board has also considered the Veteran’s lay statements of record regarding his observable symptoms, such as hearing difficulty, which are probative evidence. However, to the extent such statements assert that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability is related to his active service, to include noise exposure therein, such statements are of little probative value given the Veteran’s lack of related medical and audiological expertise. Additionally, the Board finds that the Veteran’s opinion is outweighed by the January 2016 VA examiner’s opinion. Moreover, to the extent that the Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss disability first had its onset during active service and has been constant since that time, such statements are inconsistent with other evidence of record, including service treatment records and post-service medical records, which show that three and four years following his service discharge, he specifically denied ever having or having then hearing loss. The Veteran completed these forms contemporaneously with the time periods in question, and the Board has no reason to question the accuracy of such report. Therefore, an allegation of the onset of hearing loss as starting in service is found not credible. Finally, the Board has also considered a medical study submitted by the Veteran in January 2017 regarding high frequency hearing loss in percussion players; however, such evidence does not assist the Veteran in the award of service connection, as the article is of a general nature and does not reference the specific facts particular to the Veteran’s claim. In conclusion, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved, and the claim is denied. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Chad Johnson, Counsel