Citation Nr: 21003917 Decision Date: 01/25/21 Archive Date: 01/25/21 DOCKET NO. 14-27 966A DATE: January 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1972 to July 1974. The claim was remanded in January 2020 for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran asserts that his hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his exposure to acoustic trauma due to his military occupation specialty as an aircraft structural repairman. 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), 3.385. In this case, based on the evidence of record, the Board determines that service connection is warranted for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. As an initial matter, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements regarding his in-service acoustic trauma competent and credible given the nature of his service as an aircraft structural repairman. Thus, the Board concedes exposure to hazardous noise for purposes of establishing an in-service event. Moreover, the Veteran was treated several times during service for his hearing impairment. Specifically, in November 1973 he was treated for decreased hearing. Next, audiological evaluations performed since active duty reflect findings which demonstrate bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. Further, in an October 2019 opinion, the Veteran’s private audiologist opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss was directly related to service. As a result, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that his hearing loss is etiologically related to service. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board acknowledges the negative evidence, including the May 2014, July 2019, and January 2020 VA examiners’ opinions which indicate the Veteran’s hearing loss is less likely than not related to active duty service or aggravated beyond natural progression. These opinions are all found to be less probative as they rely upon a separation examination completed in July 1973, which is before he was treated in service for decreased hearing in November 1973. As a result, the Board places more probative value on the October 2019 opinions from the Veteran’s private audiologist which indicate his hearing loss is more likely related to service given the type of acoustic trauma he was exposed to during service, and given the type of civilian occupation the Veteran had and the fact that he wore hearing protection post-service. As such, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise and service connection is warranted. 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 D. Billinger, Associate Counsel