Citation Nr: 21004646 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-46 029 DATE: January 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, his current bilateral hearing loss disability is attributable to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1964 to February 1966. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge during a January 2021 hearing. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss disability is due to acoustic trauma in service, specifically to his duties as a cannoneer. The Board concludes that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability is as likely as not due to his conceded military noise exposure; service connection is therefore warranted. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an 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). See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). For benefits to be denied, “the preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim.” Id. at 54. The Board notes that a current bilateral hearing loss disability and the Veteran’s exposure to military noise trauma have been conceded. The Board will therefore limit its analysis to the question of a nexus to service. A February 2012 VA examination found that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability was likely due to service, specifically citing exposure to artillery and howitzers. The examiner opined that the Veteran showed a mild flat bilateral sensorineural hearing loss which “likely began with noise exposure in the military.” While the examiner also inaccurately stated that the Veteran served in Vietnam, the Board notes that the examiner nevertheless accurately characterized the nature of the Veteran’s military noise exposure as a cannoneer and finds that the precise location of that exposure does not affect the probative weight of the etiological opinion. A May 2012 VA addendum opinion found that the Veteran’s hearing loss disability was not likely due to service, stating that the audiometry was more consistent with age-induced hearing loss. The Board finds that the VA examinations are adequate for appellate review. There is no evidence that the examiners were not competent or credible, and as the reports are based on the Veteran’s statements, in-person examinations and the examiners’ observations, the Board finds them entitled to significant probative weight. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302–05 (2008). The Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability is due to the conceded military noise exposure. While the February 2012 examiner found that the audiometry was consistent with military noise exposure, the May 2012 examiner interpreted the audiometry as more consistent with age-induced hearing loss. Both examiners noted the Veteran’s conceded in-service exposure to artillery fire and based their opinions on the same audiometry. Therefore, resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that his bilateral hearing loss disability is as likely as not due to the conceded noise exposure in service. Service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is therefore warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Arnold 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.