Citation Nr: 18123740 Decision Date: 08/02/18 Archive Date: 08/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-05 675 DATE: August 2, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is related to his in-service noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309, 3.385 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1962 to March 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cheyenne, Wyoming. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2012). 1. Entitlement to Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss Duties to Notify and Assist As the issue decided herein is being granted in full, any deficiency as to VA's duties to notify and assist would be harmless error and will not be discussed. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Where a disease is first diagnosed after discharge, service connection will be granted when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes it was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As a general matter, establishing service connection requires competent evidence of (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Hearing loss disability is defined by regulation. For the purpose of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered 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, or 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. Furthermore, clinical hearing loss is shown where the auditory thresholds exceed 20 decibels. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). In relevant part, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) (2012) requires that VA give “due consideration” to “all pertinent medical and lay evidence” in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57-58 (1990). The Veteran contends that he was exposed to acoustic trauma in service that caused his current hearing loss disability. The Veteran also contends that hearing loss has been medically linked to service. After reviewing the record, the Board concurs and finds that the criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. The evidence shows that the Veteran currently has bilateral (sensorineural) hearing loss. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in December 2015. That examination revealed that the Veteran had an average decibel loss of 74 in his left ear with a speech discrimination score of 68 percent. The Veteran’s right ear had an average decibel loss of 67 and a speech discrimination score of 88 percent. These findings are greater than the above enumerated thresholds required for hearing loss to be considered a disability for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The current disability criterion is met. The Board next finds that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma in service. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not show that he complained of suffering from hearing loss during his active service, and audiograms performed at the time of his entrance to service and his separation from service do not show hearing loss for VA purposes. That said, those records do affirm that he was exposed to noise while in service. For a year and a half his primary work area was a Flight Line working on B-47’s. Additionally, the Veteran’s DD-214 states that he was a Bomb Navigation System Mechanic. The Veteran himself has stated that he served as a bomb technician at an Air Force Base in Lincoln, Nebraska, and that he was exposed to exceptionally loud noises for prolonged periods. Given these facts, the Board finds that the Veteran was exposed to loud noise during his active service, despite the record lacking evidence of seeking treatment for hearing loss during this time. Thus, the in-service incurrence criterion has been met. Thus, the issue turns on whether there is a competent link between the Veteran’s current disability and his active service. The Veteran’s VA examiner opined that it is less likely than not that his hearing loss is due to in-service noise exposure. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s entrance and separation examinations showed that his hearing was normal for VA purposes and there were no significant changes in his hearing while in the military. In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a private November 2014 opinion from audiologist D.E.R. Dr. D.E.R. stated that the Veteran currently suffered from moderate to moderately severe bilateral hearing loss bilaterally. Dr. D.E.R. stated that “it is more likely than not that working three years on the flight line without ear protection would lead to some high frequency hearing loss.” In cases where there are two different medical opinions, the Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value. See Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991). Furthermore, the VA has a duty to uphold the benefit of the doubt rule, and in cases where the evidence is in relative equipoise, service connection must be granted. In weighing the two opinions against one another, the Board determines that the evidence for and against the medical nexus question is in relative equipoise. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the Board must resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. Thus, the nexus element of service connection has been met. In summary, the Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current hearing loss is related to his military noise exposure. Accordingly, resolving doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection have been met. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. Evan M. Deichert Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Darian Hughes, Law Clerk