Citation Nr: 20007845 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 19-23 994 DATE: January 30, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not 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 in the United States Navy from July 1970 to July 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on appeal from an October 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss due to in-service exposure to acoustic trauma from heavy equipment and jet engines. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes 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). Initially, the Board notes that impaired hearing will be considered a disability when, in pertinent part, the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory threshold for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 or 4000 Hertz 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 does not preclude service connection for a current hearing disability where hearing was within normal limits on audiometric testing at separation from service if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a relationship between the Veteran's service and his current disability. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). In this instance, the Veteran does not have hearing loss for VA purposes. The Veteran was afforded a VA hearing loss and tinnitus examination in October 2018. The Veteran’s Maryland CNC Word List speech recognition score and pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: 10/03/08 HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg CNC RIGHT 20 25 15 25 21.25 100 LEFT 20 20 20 25 21.25 100 Based on the audiometric findings, the Veteran does not have bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes as he does not have an auditory threshold in any of the frequencies at 40 decibels or greater, nor does he at least three frequencies of 26 decibels or greater with a speech recognition score less than 94 percent. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. The Board notes that the Veteran has asked for a second VA examination in both his May 2019 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) and August 2019 appeal to the Board. The Veteran, however, did not call into question the adequacy of the adequacy of the October 2018 examination nor did he assert a worsening of his hearing. Here, the Board finds that the October 2018 audiological examination is adequate, as the examiner provided audiometry testing that was sufficient for the proper application of the rating criteria for bilateral hearing loss. See, Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 354, 349 (1992). As such, the Board finds that a second VA examination is not appropriate. (Continued on the next page)   Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence of record is against a finding of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, the benefit of the doubt rule is inapplicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). C. TRUEBA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brian P. Keeley 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.