Citation Nr: 18158929 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 16-46 722A DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss 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 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1131, 1137, 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 from May 1955 to April 1956. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 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 as a result of active service. Specifically, the Veteran’s September 2016 VA Form 9 substantive appeal asserts that his bilateral hearing loss is a result of constant noise exposure from working in close proximity to a runway. Service treatment records do not document any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of hearing loss. A May 1955 enlistment examination documents a normal clinical evaluation of the Veteran’s ears with a 15/15 bilateral whisper test, but no documented audiometric results, and no hearing loss disability noted; additionally, the Veteran denied any ear problems within a concurrent report of medical history at enlistment. Similarly, an April 1956 separation examination likewise documents a normal clinical evaluation of the Veteran’s ears with a 15/15 bilateral whisper test, but no documented audiometric results, and no hearing loss disability noted. A subsequent report of medical history dated in March 1959 also documents the Veteran’s denial of ear, nose, or throat trouble. Finally, the Board notes that service personnel records document that the Veteran served in the United States Air Force as an administrative helper. As to the first element of a service connection claim, a current disability, the Board finds that a post-service July 2017 VA examination documents 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 April 1956, and as such, presumptive service connection for bilateral hearing loss 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. However, following a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the preponderance of evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, as there is no probative evidence of a nexus between the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability and his active service. After failing to report for VA audiology examinations in June 2014 and September 2016 due to health problems, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiology examination in July 2017. At that time, the Veteran reported that during active service in the Air Force, he was stationed near the flight line and exposed to jet engine noise, as well as gun noise from shooting at the rifle range. He further reported post-service occupational noise exposure working at a foundry that he described as loud. Following audiometric testing, the VA examiner diagnosed bilateral hearing loss, including mixed hearing loss in the right ear and sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. Ultimately, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event in military service. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran’s occupational specialty of administrative personnel had a low probability for hazardous noise exposure, and while the Veteran reported noise exposure from working in a building near the flight line, the examiner pointed out that his active service was for a short period of time from 1955 to 1956, and his separation examination showed normal hearing, although no frequency specific information was noted. The examiner also relied upon the Veteran’s report of post-service occupational noise exposure at a foundry. As such, the July 2017 VA audiology examination report does not provide probative evidence that weighs in favor of 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. 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. 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 the additional evidence of record, including service treatment records and post-service VA treatment records, which fail to document any complaints or treatment of hearing loss disability in the years immediately following active service. Additionally, the Board is mindful that VA treatment records fail to document any complaints regarding the Veteran’s hearing prior to April 2012, which is over 55 years following his discharge from active service. To the extent that the Veteran reported in April 2012 that he had experienced chronic ear infections from swimming during basic training, such statements are also of no probative value given their inconsistency with service treatment records that fail to document any related complaints during active service. In conclusion, the preponderance of the probative evidence of record weighs against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved, and the claim is denied. Lindsey M. Connor Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Chad Johnson, Counsel