Citation Nr: 18132003 Decision Date: 09/05/18 Archive Date: 09/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-00 768 DATE: September 5, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was due to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an award of service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION In the April 2014 rating decision on appeal, the RO denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, and granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with an initial 70 percent rating. In his April 2014 notice of disagreement, the Veteran disagreed with the denial of service connection for tinnitus and the rating assigned for his PTSD. In a July 2015 Decision Review Officer (DRO) decision, the RO assigned an initial 100 percent rating for PTSD. In a June 2017 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for tinnitus. Because the benefits have been granted in full, those issues are not before the Board. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017); see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Specific to claims for service connection for hearing loss, impaired hearing is considered a “disability” for VA purposes only when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; when the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies 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’s bilateral hearing loss meets the criteria to be considered a disability for VA purposes, as shown by the audiometric testing conducted at his VA examination. The Veteran received a VA examination in November 2016. The examiner conceded the Veteran’s military occupation was considered significant for hazardous noise exposure. However, the examiner determined the Veteran’s in service noise exposure was not the cause of his current disability. The examiner noted the Veteran’s bilateral hearing was within normal limits upon separation and there were no significant shifts to indicate hearing loss onset in service. In addition, the Veteran’s service records showed no issues with hearing loss. The Veteran submitted a study detailing the link between in-service noise exposure and bilateral hearing loss. The study specifically noted that a lack of change in auditory shifts from exit to entrance examination should not be held against the Veteran. The evidence also contains lay statements from the Veteran and his fiancé discussing his current issues with hearing loss. The Veteran has asserted that the has had hearing loss continuously since service. His bilateral hearing loss is a chronic condition as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Therefore, the theory of continuity of symptomatology is applicable in this case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a),(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran’s statements are competent and credible. The Board finds the November 2016 VA examiner’s opinion is inadequate because it is not permissible to provide a negative opinion based solely based upon normal hearing at separation from service. The Board finds the medical study presented by the Veteran presents competent, credible evidence linking in-service noise exposure to bilateral hearing loss. Additionally, the Veteran’s lay assertions are probative evidence in support of his claim. The preponderance of the probative evidence is in favor of the Veteran’s claim. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Brunot, Associate Counsel