Citation Nr: 20005671 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 18-13 251 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was exposed to loud military noise in service while performing his duties as a jet engine mechanic. 2. The Veteran is not currently diagnosed with a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.385 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to March 1971 and from December 1990 to June 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires (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 evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A lay person is competent to report on the onset and reoccurrence of current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). The Board must determine on a case-by-case basis whether a Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). When all evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the claimant prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The laws authorizing Veterans' benefits provide benefits only where there is current disability. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there is no valid claim of service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). For VA purposes, impaired hearing is considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz 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. Additionally, precedential case law provides that the threshold for normal hearing is between 0 and 20 decibels and that higher thresholds show some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). Here, the Veteran asserts he has a bilateral hearing loss disability as a result of active military service. His Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) was a Jet Engine Mechanic, and the Department of Defense's Duty MOS Noise Exposure Listing indicates that an MOS as a jet mechanic involves a "high" probability of noise exposure. Exposure to loud military noise in service is conceded. Notwithstanding the in-service noise exposure, the Veteran does not meet the threshold element of his service connection claim, namely a current hearing loss disability. In May 2017, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination. Puretone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 3000 Hz 4000 Hz RIGHT EAR 10 20 20 30 30 LEFT EAR 15 15 25 35 25 Speech recognition scores were 100 percent, bilaterally. These audiological findings do not establish that the Veteran has a hearing loss disability for VA purposes in either ear because none of the auditory thresholds in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hz are 40 decibels or greater, at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hz are not 26 decibels or greater, and the speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are not less than 94 percent. Accordingly, the May 2017 audiogram results do not meet the VA regulatory criteria set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Board notes there are no other current audiogram results of record. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s statement that he has hearing loss related to his military service. See April 2017 Statement in Support of Claim. However, the Veteran, as a lay person, is not competent to establish that he has a hearing loss disability or to render a medical opinion because he is not shown to possess the requisite medical training. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, the Board recognizes the Veteran’s argument that while “[t]he severity of hearing loss may not meet criteria for VA compensatory entitlement… there is sensorineural hearing loss nonetheless. SC should be granted at a 0% compensation rate based on the evidence available.” See December 2019 Written Brief Presentation. The Board agrees that the May 2017 VA audiological examination revealed some degree of hearing loss – the Veteran had puretone thresholds above 20 decibels at 3000 and 4000 Hz in his right ear and at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz in his left ear. Nevertheless, the Board is bound by VA regulations and the Veteran’s puretone thresholds unfortunately do not meet the VA regulatory criteria to establish a current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In sum, the Veteran does not meet the threshold element of a current disability. Because the evidence does not show that he is diagnosed with a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes, there can be no valid claim. Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. The appeal is therefore denied. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. M. Gill, 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.