Citation Nr: 21000033 Decision Date: 01/04/21 Archive Date: 01/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-07 095 DATE: January 4, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus was not incurred in, or otherwise etiologically related to, active duty service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1974 to September 1974. In February 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This matter comes before the Board pursuant to a May 2020 Board Remand Decision where the Veteran requested a new VA examination because his November 2015 examination was inadequate. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to service. Specifically, he claims his disorders stem from being slapped in both ears by his Drill Sergeant, as well noise exposure in the barracks during Basic Training. 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. Under the relevant laws and regulations, 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, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. As a preliminary matter, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. § §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a), (d). Specifically, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the above frequencies 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. In this case, the audiometric testing during the Veteran's August 2020 VA examination did not reveal an auditory threshold over 25 decibels in any of the applicable frequencies of both ears. Further, the Veteran's speech recognition scores were measured at 98 percent in both ears. Additionally, his November 2015 VA examination and VA treatment records do not support a diagnosis of hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. Therefore, the Board finds that he does not have bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions and belief that he has bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation, however, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex and requires specialized medical education and knowledge of the interaction between multiple systems in the body, as well as the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007). Indeed, to the extent that the Veteran reported symptoms of hearing loss that could arise to the level of hearing loss for VA compensation purposes, the Board finds that these statements are not sufficient to establish hearing loss by themselves. As such, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has left ear hearing loss at any point during the time on appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992). In regard to the Veteran’s tinnitus disorder, service connection is also not warranted. As an initial matter, the Veteran’s service treatment records do not reflect any complaints of tinnitus, nor was there any indication of tinnitus until 2015, and over 40 years after the fact. Therefore continuity of symptoms is not established based on the clinical evidence. Moreover, to the extent that the Veteran asserts the he has experienced tinnitus since service, the Board reiterates what it stated previously, in that service connection cannot be granted solely based on his statements, as they are not sufficiently credible. Specifically, prior to filing his claims on appeal, he filed a claim seeking service connection for a lung condition in March 2011. The fact that he was aware of the VA benefits system and sought out another claim for benefits but made no reference to an acquired psychiatric disorder, glaucoma, and a lower back disorder weighs against finding that his statements concerning continued symptoms are credible. Thus, a continuity of symptoms cannot be established based upon the Veteran’s assertion Next, service connection also cannot be established based on the evidence of record. Specifically, the Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in August 2020. On that occasion, after a full examination, the VA examiner opined that his reported tinnitus is less likely than not related to service. The examiner based his reasoning on the fact that the record is silent for complaints, diagnosis or treatment for tinnitus until 2015 – more than 40 years after service. Additionally, the examiner stated that his claimed ear injury in Basic Training was not reported in his service records, including his separating Medical Board Proceedings. Furthermore, the Veteran served for one month and two days but had significant post-military noise exposure as a construction worker with variable use of hearing protection. Therefore, the Veteran’s reported tinnitus is not related or caused by his military service. The Board has also considered the statements made by the Veteran relating his disorders to active service. While the Veteran believes that these disorders are related to service, he is not competent to provide testimony regarding the diagnosis and etiology of hearing loss, as he is a lay person without appropriate medical training and expertise to provide a medical diagnosis and etiological opinion. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377, n.4. Moreover, while the Veteran is able to self-diagnose tinnitus, the Board has found that his statements are not sufficiently credible for service connection to be granted based purely on his statements. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the opinions of the VA medical examiners because the opinions were based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). In light of the above discussion, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the service connection claims, and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. 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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. McDonald