Citation Nr: 18129136 Decision Date: 08/24/18 Archive Date: 08/23/18 DOCKET NO. 16-00 119 DATE: August 24, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss has not manifested as auditory thresholds in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz of 40 decibels or greater, auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz of 26 decibels or greater, or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test of less than 94 percent in either ear at any time during the period of the claim; thus, he has not had hearing loss in either ear for VA purposes during the period of the claim. 2. The Veteran has not had hypertension during the period of the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2017); see also Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). 2. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2017); see also Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1992 to April 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). General Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2017). “Congress specifically limits entitlement to service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability.... In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim.” Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Court has held that the current disability requirement is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim even where the disability resolves prior to the Secretary’s adjudication of the claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must weigh against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. Background and Analysis Service connection for bilateral hearing loss At the outset, the Board notes that for 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, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2017). The Veteran instituted a claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss in January 2013. He was afforded a VA examination in June 2016. Upon examination, puretone thresholds were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 5 15 15 30 25 LEFT 5 10 15 30 30 Speech discrimination was 100 percent in the right ear and 100 percent in the left ear. The examiner indicated the Veteran had normal hearing in both ears. The Board observes that the June 2016 auditory thresholds detailed above do not meet the criteria for a hearing impairment disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Board has thoroughly reviewed the record, and has found there is no medical evidence showing auditory thresholds in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz of 40 decibels or greater, auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz of 26 decibels or greater, or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test of less than 94 percent in either ear at any time during the period of the claim. Accordingly, although the Veteran may have some level of subjective hearing loss, the Board must conclude that the Veteran does not have a hearing impairment disability for the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA. Because there is no evidence of a hearing loss disability for VA purposes in either ear at any time during the period of the claim, the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied. In reaching its decision, the Board has duly considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine, but has determined that a preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim. As such, the doctrine is inapplicable and the claim must be denied. Service connection for hypertension The Veteran filed a claim for service connection for “borderline hypertension elevated blood pressure readings” in January 2013. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) show a notation of “elevated blood pressure” was made in an April 2005 record. Blood pressure readings appeared to be elevated on several other occasions during the Veteran’s service. In this regard, however, the Board notes that for VA purposes, hypertension must be confirmed by readings taken two or more times on at least three different days. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101, Note (1) (2017). A review of the STRs does not show the Veteran was diagnosed with hypertension or any other condition related to his intermittent elevated blood pressure readings on any occasion during service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2016. The examiner noted the Veteran’s report that he was told at least once during service that his blood pressure was “a little high.” The Veteran denied ever having been diagnosed with hypertension or having been prescribed blood pressure medication. The examiner took two blood pressure readings at the examination, and they were 144/82 and 148/88. The Veteran returned the next day for two more readings, which were 145/85 and 144/78, and for two more readings on the following day, which were 133/85 and 124/77. In her report, the examiner stated the Veteran had never been diagnosed with hypertension, that there was no pathology to render a diagnosis, and that the Veteran’s blood pressure measurements included in the report did not meet the diagnostic criteria for hypertension. The Veteran has not submitted or identified any medical records which he has contended include a diagnosis of hypertension or any other condition related to his blood pressure readings. Upon a thorough review of the record, the Board has not located a diagnosis of any such condition. Because there is no evidence of a disability for VA purposes during the period of the claim, the claim for service connection for “borderline hypertension elevated blood pressure readings” must be denied. (Continued on the next page)   In reaching its decision, the Board has duly considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine, but has determined that a preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim. As such, the doctrine is inapplicable and the claim must be denied. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Hampton, Associate Counsel