Citation Nr: 20021906 Decision Date: 03/27/20 Archive Date: 03/27/20 DOCKET NO. 18-43 941 DATE: March 27, 2020 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, his bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Navy from February 1970 to February 1972. This matter is on appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2016 rating decision of a regional office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In February 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing via videoconference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Bilateral Hearing Loss Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection requires competent evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. While the Veteran’s service treatment records are absent for any treatment, complaints, or findings of hearing loss in service, the Board points out that the absence of documented hearing loss in service is not fatal to a claim for service connection. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Further, VA has already conceded in-service noise exposure in granting service connection for tinnitus. Moreover, evidence of a current hearing loss disability (i.e., one meeting the requirements of section 3.385) and a medically sound basis for attributing such disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In this regard, the Board acknowledges the conflicting medical opinions of record. The record shows a June 2016 VA medical opinion where the examiner noted the Veteran’s “MOS of Builder is highly probable for hazardous noise exposure.” However, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely the result of military service. See Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) dated December 2015; VA addendum opinion dated June 2016. The record reflects a February 2019 statement from a private Audiologist finding the Veteran’s “hearing loss exhibited is permanent and consistent with his history of noise exposure in the military.” Based on audiological examination and review of the Veteran’s electronic claims file, the Audiologist opined that the Veteran’s “exposure to excessive noise during his military service is, more likely than not (greater than 50% probability), a contributing factor to his tinnitus and hearing loss.” See Statement from C.K., Au.D., dated February 2019. Additionally, the record also reflects the Veteran’s competent and credible testimony describing his worsening hearing loss symptoms since separation from service. The Veteran is competent to report the occurrence of such symptoms since they are within his realm of personal and firsthand knowledge. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007) (holding that lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology). Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran’s credible reports are consistent with the circumstances of his service. Taking all reports into account, the Board concludes that the evidence is in relative equipoise, meaning that the evidence for and against the Veteran’s claim is essentially equal. In such circumstances, the regulations dictate that reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Accordingly, as the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is for application, the Board finds that the grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. A., 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.