Citation Nr: 21003836 Decision Date: 01/25/21 Archive Date: 01/25/21 DOCKET NO. 14-32 244A DATE: January 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT For the entire appeal period, the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss has been manifested by no more than Level I hearing impairment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from December 1980 to January 1984 and in the U.S. Army from December 2004 to February 2006, December 2007 to November 2011, September 2013 to September 2014, and October 2014 to December 2016. In August 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss for further development. Specifically, the Board instructed the regional office (RO) to obtain missing medical records. Bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an increased rating for his bilateral hearing loss. Hearing impairment is evaluated pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. Ratings for hearing impairment are derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are rendered. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). Evaluations of defective hearing range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of a controlled Maryland CNC speech discrimination test together with the average hearing threshold level measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 cycles per second (Hertz).  38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. The rating schedule establishes eleven auditory acuity levels, designated from Level I for essentially normal hearing acuity, through Level XI for profound deafness.  38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The horizontal rows in Table VI (in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85) represent nine categories of the percentage of discrimination based on the controlled speech discrimination test. The vertical columns in Table VI represent nine categories of decibel loss based on the pure tone audiometry test. The Roman numeral designation is located at the point where the percentage of speech discrimination and pure tone threshold average intersect. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86. An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment occurs when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more.  38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). In that situation, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral. Further, when the average pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral, and that numeral will then be elevated to the next higher numeral.  38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b). In consideration of the evidence of record under the laws and regulations set forth above, the Board concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to a compensable rating for his bilateral hearing loss for the entire period on appeal. A February 2018 VA audiological evaluation was associated with the Veteran’s claims file in October 2019 that showed puretone thresholds for different frequency levels. Unfortunately, speech recognition test was not done, and the Board finds it provides minimal probative value. See 38C.F.R. § 4.85(a). The Veteran submitted a private audiology from April 2018. However, the examination report also did not include any Maryland CNC speech recognition results, and as such, the Board again finds it provides minimal probative value. See id. The Veteran appeared for a VA examination in March 2019. Puretone thresholds were as follows: HERTZ   1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg. CNC RIGHT 50 35 35 70 48 94% LEFT 45 50 50 70 51 94% The puretone threshold average was 48 decibels in the right ear and 51 decibels in the left ear. Using the Maryland CNC speech recognition test, speech audiometry results revealed a speech recognition ability score of 94 percent in both ears. Under Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, the scores for the both ears correlate to a Roman numeral I. A noncompensable rating is warranted under Diagnostic Code 6100 when these auditory acuity levels are entered into Table VII of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The Board has also considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 governing exceptional patterns of hearing impairment. However, the audiological reports do not demonstrate that each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) in either ear is 55 decibels or more or that puretone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz in either ear. Therefore, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 are not applicable. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a), (b). The Board expressly acknowledges its consideration of the lay evidence of record when adjudicating this claim, including the Veteran’s reports of decreased hearing acuity. The Veteran is competent to report difficulty with his hearing; however, as noted above, disability ratings for hearing loss are derived from a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations resulting from audiometric testing. See Lendenmann, supra. (Continued on the next page)   The rating criteria contemplate speech reception thresholds and ability to hear spoken words on Maryland CNC testing. The functional impact that the Veteran describes is contemplated by the rating criteria. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under DC 6100, and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, an increased rating is not warranted at this time. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. L. Park, 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.