Citation Nr: 18158311
Decision Date: 12/14/18	Archive Date: 12/14/18

DOCKET NO. 16-59 309
DATE:	December 14, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.
FINDING OF FACT
The Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability did not have its onset in service, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to his service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met.  38U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
Generally, to establish direct service connection 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.”  Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  
Additionally, for Veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities, such as hearing loss, are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.
Alternatively, service connection may be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) by (a) evidence of (i) the existence of a chronic disease in service or during an applicable presumption period under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 and (ii) present manifestations of the same chronic disease, or (b) when a chronic disease is not present during service, evidence of continuity of symptomatology.  The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) relating to continuity of symptomatology can be applied only in cases involving those conditions explicitly recognized as chronic under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a).  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
With respect to claims for service connection for hearing loss, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that the threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and that higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss.  Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993).  The Court further opined that 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, discussed below, then operates to establish when a hearing loss disability can be service connected.  Id. at 159.
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, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz 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 Veteran contends that he has hearing loss as a result of noise exposure during service.  
An July 1979 enlistment examination showed puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows:
HERTZ	500	1000	2000	3000	4000
RIGHT	10	0	0	-	5
LEFT	10	10	0	-	10
The entrance examination indicates no history of, or complaint for ear problems.
A September 1977 separation examination showed puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows:
HERTZ	500	1000	2000	3000	4000
RIGHT	10	10	5	5	10
LEFT	10	15	5	5	10
The separation examination showed no hearing loss.  The Veteran reported, “I feel good” and denied wearing hearing aids.  
A June 2015 VA examination showed puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows:
HERTZ	500	1000	2000	3000	4000	AVG
RIGHT	30	35	40	75	75	56.25
LEFT	35	35	70	75	70	63.75

Maryland CNC speech discrimination testing showed recognition of 92 percent in the right ear and 88 percent in the left ear. 
The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not caused by or as a result of an event during military service.  The rationale provided was that the Veteran presented with normal hearing in 1977, the year he left service.  The enlistment hearing test in 1969 showed normal hearing and the discharge hearing test also showed normal hearing, with no significant changes in hearing thresholds.  In addition, the Veteran reported working as an auto mechanic for 35 years since service.  The examiner explained that the Veteran was most likely exposed to high levels of noise as a result of his employment as an auto mechanic after service.  This examiner provided clear rationale to support his conclusion. 
The earliest record of evidence, after service, to indicate a compliant of and or treatment for hearing loss is dated June 2012.  During a June 2012 VA medical visit, the Veteran reported symptoms of hearing loss and requested a referral to audiology.  
Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  Although the evidence shows that the Veteran has current bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes, the most probative evidence of record demonstrates that this is not related to his service. 
As reflected in the June 2015 VA examination, the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability, as VA defines it.  38 C.F.R. § 3.385.  Given the Veteran’s military occupational specialty and his reported in-service exposure to turbines, cannon fire, tank fire diesel engines and generators, the Board determines that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the Veteran was exposed to loud noises while in service.  Therefore, the remaining question before the Board is whether there is a connection between the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability and his military service.
The Board notes that there were slight auditory shifts in the right ear and left ear at 1000Hz, 2000Hz, and only in the right ear at 4000Hz when comparing the July 1979 audiogram to the September 1977 audiogram.  However, these thresholds alone do not rise to a hearing loss disability.  
The Veteran’s service treatment records do not contain any complaints, treatment, or findings related to hearing loss.  In fact, the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits at audiological examinations conducted in service, both at entrance and separation.  In addition, he denied having hearing loss at separation from service.
The medical opinion of record concludes that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is not a result of noise exposure in service, as the service treatment records indicated normal hearing and the record does not indicate hearing loss until three decades after service.  The Board finds this examination and opinion to be highly probative.
In its analysis, the Board has considered the statements of the Veteran linking the Veteran’s military service, to include noise exposure, to his current bilateral hearing loss. 
The Veteran is competent to report the hearing loss symptoms he has experienced, when those symptoms began, and the noise to which he was exposed to in service.  However, the Veteran, as a lay person, is not competent to attribute his hearing loss to any instance of his military service, as he has not demonstrated that he is an expert in determining the etiology of hearing loss.  The VA audiologist is a trained medical professional who interpreted the service audiograms and determined there was no evidence to indicate hearing loss during service, which is considered more probative than the Veteran’s lay assertions. 
The Veteran’s statements linking his current hearing loss to his military service are not within the realm of knowledge of a layperson, as such is a complex question that requires expertise.  Specifically, it involves the impact of acoustic trauma and loud noises on the auditory functioning of the ear.  Thus, the Veteran is not competent to render an opinion regarding the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and his opinion and statements on such matter are not probative. 
Accordingly, as bilateral hearing loss is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, or injury in service and bilateral hearing loss did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of the Veteran’s discharge from service, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted.  In addition, there is no probative evidence of record to indicate a continuity of symptomatology.  In fact, the evidence shows that the Veteran had normal hearing while in service and that the onset of any hearing loss did not occur until several years after service.  In reaching this decision, the Board considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

 
H.M. WALKER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T. Talamantes, Associate Counsel