Citation Nr: 20060239 Decision Date: 09/14/20 Archive Date: 09/14/20 DOCKET NO. 16-17 324 DATE: September 14, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not shown as chronic in service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; 3.304, 3.307; 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1968 through March 1971 with additional service in the Reserves. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Providence, Rhode Island. In his April 2016 Form 9 Appeal to the Board, the Veteran requested to appear at a hearing before the Board. A hearing was subsequently scheduled for April 2019. Notice of the scheduled hearing was sent to the Veteran including the time and place pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(b). Said notice was not returned to the Board as undeliverable. Further, the Veteran has failed to request a new hearing or show good cause as to his failure to appear. As such, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn and the matter will be decided on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its findings of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends his bilateral hearing loss was caused by noise trauma in-service. The Board finds service connection is not warranted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for the aggravation of a pre-existing injury or disease in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The elements of service connection are: “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service,” also known as the nexus element. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The nexus element may be fulfilled by (1) a nexus opinion or (2) competent and credible evidence showing that the Veteran has experienced frequent and persistent symptoms of the disease since service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Where a Veteran served continuously for 90 days or more during a period of war, or during peacetime service after December 31, 1946, and an organic disease of the nervous system, such as sensorineural hearing loss, becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in or aggravated by service, even though there is no evidence of such diseases during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. See also Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 271 (2015). Evidence of continuity of symptomatology from the time of service until the present is required where the chronicity of a chronic condition manifested during service either has not been established or might reasonably be questioned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that only conditions listed as chronic diseases in § 3.309(a) may be considered for service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b)). The Veteran’s service treatment records do not indicate any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to hearing loss. His entrance and separation examinations, moreover, are not indicative of a hearing loss disability or a significant threshold shift at an auditory threshold. See February 1968 entrance examination; see also March 1971 separation examination. Indeed, his separation examination shows improved audiogram results compared with his entrance examination results. Id. The Veteran’s DD-214 lists his military occupation specialty as stock clerk, which is not normally associated with significant acoustic trauma. The Veteran, however, credibly and competently reported that he was exposed to weapons firing throughout the day and night without ear protection while serving in the 94th Artillery unit on active duty. See December 2015 VA examination; see also March 2016 Statement in Support of Claim. He received various medals, to include a Vietnam Service Medal for his service in Vietnam. His participation in Basic Training is also noted in his military records. Thus, it is not reasonably in dispute that the Veteran was exposed to at least some amount of in-service acoustic trauma. The Veteran first reported hearing loss in approximately 2014, decades after service. See November 2014 South Shore Hospital treatment records. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for hearing loss in December 2015 during which he was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. See December 2015 VA examination; 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss was not at least as likely as not related to service because the Veteran did not show a significant threshold change in hearing from entrance to separation. See December 2015 VA examination. In this case, the Veteran does not meet the presumptions for service connection under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not reported until decades after service and decades outside of the required one-year manifestation period. Further, the record lacks continuity of symptomatology as there were no complaints of hearing loss after separation in 1971 until 2014. Although the Veteran has a current disability and in-service noise exposure has been found, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding of a nexus between the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and service. Consequently, service connection is not warranted. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A.C. Allen, 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.