Citation Nr: 21061448 Decision Date: 10/04/21 Archive Date: 10/04/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 397 DATE: October 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss began in service and has continued to the present. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1967 to March 1969. He appeals an August 2015 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In May 2020 the Board remanded the Veteran's claim to the AOJ for further action consistent with the Board's remand directives. The claim is back before the Board for further appellate proceedings. A Veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called "nexus" requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that a disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), claims for chronic diseases enumerated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) benefit from a relaxed evidentiary standard. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Hearing loss is such a disease. To show a chronic disease in service, the record must contain a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. If chronicity in service is not established, a showing of continuity of symptoms after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes and was exposed to loud noises in service. See May 2020 VA examination report. The Veteran stated that he "noticed some hearing trouble and some ringing [sic] and other noise in my ears while I was still in the service. Both have gotten worse over the years." See March 2015 Veteran statement. Additionally, the Veteran argues that the separation examination in the record contains multiple errors. He stated that it listed his height, eye color, and vision incorrectly. See February 2016 Veteran statement. Thus, the Veteran argues that given the inconsistencies and errors it is likely that the separation audiogram was inaccurate as well; therefore, it cannot be used as a basis for the denial of service connection for hearing loss. Id. Upon review, the Board notes that there are significant differences between the induction and separation examination findings for the Veteran. The January 1969 separation examination noted the Veteran to be five feet nine inches tall with green eyes. His vision was listed as 20/400, with refractive error. See January 1969 separation examination. However, the January 1967 induction examination recorded the Veteran to be three inches taller, with blue eyes and 20/20 vision. See January 1967 induction examination. The Veteran stated that the induction measurements are the correct findings. See February 2016 Veteran statement. Notably, the induction examination report is consistent with the measurements and findings of a road test conducted in September 1968. See September 1968 road test. Thus, the separation examination is indeed the outlier among the three. The Board finds that these inconsistencies bolster the Veteran's argument that there is a possibility the audiogram findings from his separation examination in 1969 were also erroneous and that he did have hearing loss at separation, which he argues has continued to the present. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his hearing loss symptoms and the Board finds his report credible. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Collectively, the evidence of record sufficiently establishes that it is at least as likely not that the Veteran's current hearing loss had onset in service. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"). The Board acknowledges that the May 2020 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is not related to service. However, the examiner's opinion carries no probative weight as it did not adequately address the Veteran's competent and credible report of hearing loss symptoms in and since service, nor did it address the errors and inconsistencies contained in the 1969 separation examination report outlined by the Veteran and discussed herein. Accordingly, the Board finds service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Katie Poe, 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.