Citation Nr: 20005666 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 18-03 732 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to military noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 10, 1969 to February 23, 1970, and from March 24, 1970 to March 30, 1970. The Veteran also has additional periods of Army National Guard and US Army Reserve service. The Veteran asserts that he experienced military noise exposure during his active service, which lead to his current bilateral hearing loss. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The evidence of record indicates that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The record also indicates that during his active service, the Veteran participated in basic combat training and advanced individual training for his military occupational specialty of field wireman, attached to an infantry artillery unit. The Veteran’s required activities indicate that the he more than likely than not experienced some noise exposure during active service. The remaining determination for the Board is whether there is a causal relationship between the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss and his military service. In this regard, there are probative opinions that support and weigh against the claim. The evidence against the claim includes an April 2016 VA medical opinion. The VA examiner found that the Veteran’s hearing loss is less likely than not related to his military service. As support for the opinion, the examiner found that the Veteran did not experience positive threshold shifts greater than normal in either the right or left ear when comparing audiograms between entrance and separation from service. Further, the examiner indicated that the Veteran’s hearing developed later in life and medical literature provides insufficient evidence supporting the conclusion that noise induced hearing loss can develop later in one’s life long after cessation of that noise exposure. The evidence in favor of the claim includes the Veteran’s lay statements and a May 2016 private medical opinion. The private physician indicated that the Veteran’s hearing loss is more likely than not related to his military service. As support for, the opinion, the physician indicated that the Veteran’s pattern of hearing loss was consistent with excessive noise exposure. The physician also relied on the Veteran’s self-reported medical history and observations that there were known risks of auditory trauma associated with service in a military artillery unit. During the treatment encounter, the Veteran reported hearing loss for several years, and a history of difficulty communicating in his civilian profession leading to the purchase of hearing aids in September 2011. The Veteran also reported no excessive noise exposure outside of his military service. There is no indication that the private physician reviewed the Veteran’s service treatment records or military personnel file. In his April 2016 notice of disagreement, the Veteran reported that his hearing loss was noticed twenty to thirty years prior. At that time, he found himself missing words while working as a school teacher. He sought medical attention but was told hearing aids would not help. He also reported a free hearing screening, approximately six years prior that indicated he needed hearing aids; the Veteran sought an independent examination to verify the test results. During the independent examination, the Veteran was told that his hearing loss was due to injury and that new technology would allow him to receive benefit from hearing aids. The Veteran indicated that prior to this independent examination, and prompting from his private provider, it did not occur to him that his hearing problems were related to his military service. Lastly, the Veteran reported that during his active service his time as a wireman required repair of communications next to large guns and that after his military service, he was a school teacher for almost 40 years with a quiet lifestyle. The Veteran reported similar information during his April 2016 VA examination, indicating that his military noise exposure included hand grenades, artillery, and heavy and small arms, and that his civilian occupational and recreational noise exposure included teaching, day camp, and carpentry. The Veteran certainly possesses the competency to report what comes to him through his senses, one of which is reporting on his experiences of loud noises and missing words during communication. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran’s reported history of hearing loss and noise exposure are considered credible and afforded great weight. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. I. Sims 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.