Citation Nr: 19123738 Decision Date: 03/29/19 Archive Date: 03/29/19 DOCKET NO. 17-56 023 DATE: March 29, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a bilateral hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for bilateral ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 2000 to May 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. Pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 (2017). The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. That determination requires a finding of current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992). Service connection may be granted for a disability diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability is due to disease or injury that was incurred or aggravated in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The first requirement for all claims for service connection, however, is evidence of a disability. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of hearing loss by VA standards and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). To meet VA’s definition of hearing loss, or hearing loss sufficiently severe to constitute a disability, the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz must be 40 decibels or greater, or the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz must be 26 decibels or greater, or the speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test must be less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. On the authorized audiological evaluation in March 2017, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 10 15 20 20 LEFT 15 10 10 15 25 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in both ears. The March 2017 VA examiner noted that the Veteran served as a field artillery cannoneer, which had a high probability for hazardous noise exposure. The Veteran reported noise exposure from rifles, handguns, and cannons. The examiner noted that the Veteran had significant fluctuations in his hearing throughout his in-service audiograms, to include in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005. In September 2015, the Veteran reported his in-service hazardous noise exposure and claimed that it caused permanent damage. In October 2017, he reported that he had hearing loss in service. While the Veteran is competent to report hearing difficulties, he is not competent to diagnose hearing loss, including by VA standards or otherwise. Such a diagnosis requires specialized knowledge of audiograms and an ability to interpret all pertinent responses. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As the evidence does not include a competent diagnosis of hearing loss, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for hearing loss are not met. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection for disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. In this case, the competent evidence establishes that the Veteran does not have the disability for which service connection is sought, that is bilateral hearing loss consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, and thus, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). Therefore, the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied because the first essential criterion for the grant of service connection, competent evidence of the disability for which service connection is sought, is not met. Accordingly, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Ko, Associate Counsel