Citation Nr: 21062917 Decision Date: 10/12/21 Archive Date: 10/12/21 DOCKET NO. 15-35 906 ATE: October 12, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Giving the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, his bilateral hearing loss began during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1986 to January 1994. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. This matter has previously been remanded by the Board for further development, most recently in April 2020. This matter is again before the Board. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. The Veteran believes that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. See September 2021 Appellate Brief. Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for certain chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system, such as sensorineural hearing loss, when such disability is manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of discharge from service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; see also VAOPGCPREC. 2-03 at paras. 2-3 (May 22, 2003). When chronic diseases are at issue, the second and third elements for service connection may be established by showing continuity of symptomatology. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Veteran will receive the benefit of the doubt. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). VA has conceded that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. See May 2021 SSOC. Medical records show the same and show that the Veteran's hearing loss is sensorineural. See May 2021 C&P Exam. Therefore, the first element of service connection has been established. The Veteran reported working as a heavy wheel vehicle mechanic and reported being exposed to weapons fire, flight line noises, jet aircraft noises, 105 howitzer noises, and noises from vehicles/tires blowing up during service. The Veteran fired weapons with both hands without hearing protection during service. The Veteran reported that his hearing loss began during active service. See May 2021 C&P Exam; March 2014 C&P Exam. Service records confirmed that the Veteran was routinely exposed to hazardous noise during service. See September 2013 STR Medical. Medical records from 2017 showed the Veteran's report that as a civilian, he did not have any hazardous noise exposure, like he did during service. See February 2021 CAPRI. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran was exposed to loud noises during active service and finds the lay assertions regarding his in-service noise exposure and the onset, nature, and progression of his bilateral hearing loss competent and credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Board gives this evidence great probative value. Therefore, the second element of service connection has been established. A May 2021 VA examination found that the Veteran's bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was not related to service because the service records showed no significant permanent shift in hearing thresholds, which was objective evidence of no permanent auditory damage while on active duty. See May 2021 C&P Exam. The Board finds the May 2021 VA examination inadequate, among other reasons, because it did not substantially comply with the Board's previous remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Specifically, the Board's April 2020 remand instructions stated that the VA examination needed to opine as to whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had its onset within one year following separation from service. See April 2020 BVA Decision. The May 2021 VA examination did not provide this opinion. Additionally, the May 2021 VA examination did not consider/was unable to consider all the relevant evidence of record. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Specifically, the May 2021 VA examination did not consider/was unable to consider the Veteran's report that during service he fired weapons with both hands without any hearing protection and that he did not have any hazardous noise exposure as a civilian. See March 2014 C&P Exam; February 2021 CAPRI. As such, the Board gives the May 2021 VA examination no probative weight. Based on the Veteran's credible report, a continuity of symptomatology for bilateral hearing loss has been sufficiently established. Additionally, no medical reason has been offered to reject this credible lay report concerning continuity of symptomatology. In sum, the Veteran credibly contends that bilateral hearing loss was incurred during active service and has continued until now. The Board has also found that the VA examination, which found that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was not related to service, was not probative. Therefore, giving the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Dougan, 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.