Citation Nr: 20004585 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/21/20 DOCKET NO. 18-02 918 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that bilateral hearing loss began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. § §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § §§ 3.102, 3.303 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that he suffers from bilateral hearing loss as a result of noise exposure in service. The Veteran claims that he served as a medic while in Vietnam and was frequently exposed to loud noises such as gunfire and helicopters. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection requires (1) evidence of a presently existing disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any signs, symptoms, complaints, or treatment for hearing loss. Additionally, the Veteran’s enlistment and separation examinations both indicate normal hearing for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran was provided with a VA audiological examination in September 2017 wherein he was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s entrance and separation audiogram revealed normal hearing with no significant threshold shifts. The examiner added that it is known that hearing thresholds do not continue to shift as a result of noise exposure once the noise source has been stopped. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s current hearing loss is a result of hazardous noise in service. The Board has considered the Veteran’s contention that his hearing loss began during service, however, the etiology of the Veteran’s disability cannot be determined by mere observation alone. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s reports of serving as a medic in the military and that he is not considered a layperson but an individual with competency in medical matters. However, the Veteran has not provided a rationale to support his opinion. Accordingly, the Board finds the September 2017 VA medical opinion to be more probative in this case. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s argument, through his representative, that the VA examiner based her negative opinion on the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence of in-service hearing loss and that the rationale is inadequate based on the lack of evidence without consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements. However, the Board finds that the examiner took into consideration the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his exposure to loud noise in service even though his MOS was a typist clerk. Additionally, the Board notes that the VA examiner did not base her opinion on the lack of evidence in-service, but instead on the objective audiological evaluations at enlistment and separation that showed no significant threshold shifts. She supported her conclusion based on it being known that thresholds do not continue to shift once the noise source has stopped. Accordingly, the Board finds that the September 2017 VA examination report has considered the Veteran’s lay statements and has provided an opinion that is supported by an adequate rationale. In conclusion, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In denying such a rating, the Board finds the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Morrad, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.