Citation Nr: 21063655 Decision Date: 10/15/21 Archive Date: 10/15/21 DOCKET NO. 17-32 895 DATE: October 15, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran did not report for his VA audiometric examination to ascertain the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. 2. The Veteran does not have bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. 3. The evidence does not show, and the Veteran has not specifically contended that, he has bilateral hearing loss that had its onset during service or manifested to a compensable degree within one year following the date of separation from service, and hearing loss is not shown to be related to an injury, disease, or event in service. 4. The evidence does not show, and the Veteran has not specifically contended that, his tinnitus had its onset during service or manifested to a compensable degree within one year following the date of separation from service, and tinnitus is not shown to be related to an injury, disease, or event in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1956 to June 1958. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In his substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a Board Hearing via videoconference, and a Board Hearing was scheduled for May 2019. However, in an April 2019 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran withdrew his Board hearing request in writing. In September 2020, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for additional development. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran generally contends that he warrants entitlement to service connection for his hearing loss and tinnitus. For the purpose of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing is considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory threshold for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385(a), an examination for hearing impairment for VA purposes must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a pure tone audiometry test. The Veteran's service treatment records were lost in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). In such cases, VA has a heightened duty to assist the claimant in developing the claim, as well as to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule and to explain its decision. Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217-18 (2005), citing Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996); see also Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). A review of the post-service VA treatment records notes the Veteran's reports that he was exposed to acoustic trauma during service. More specifically, he indicated he was exposed to the noise from pistols without hearing protection while in basic training. See July 2021 CAPRI. He also reported longstanding bilateral intermittent tinnitus. However, the Veteran also reported noise exposure outside military service. Occupationally, he indicated he worked on a farm with heavy machinery and tractors. Recreationally, he reported trap shooting with hearing protection. A review of his DD Form 214 reflects the Veteran earned a commendation as a "Sharpshooter (Rifle)" but that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was a "Clerk." VA treatment records in 2014, 2017, 2019, 2021 have noted audio testing that revealed mild or moderate to moderately severe or severe SNHL in the right and left ear. See April 2015 CAPRI and July 2021 CAPRI. However, these testing results did not indicate the word recognition scores were based on the Maryland CNC speech discrimination test and did not indicate that the audio testing were conducted by state-licensed audiologists. The providers also did not provide specific decibel findings for each of the four specified frequencies (i.e., 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz); therefore, these findings cannot be used for determination of hearing loss for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA audiology examination. However, a July 2021 correspondence indicated the Veteran would not report for the scheduled examination in support of his claims. See July 2021 C&P Exam. Review of the available evidence does not show that the Veteran showed good cause for not reporting for this examination prior to the promulgation of the decision on appeal. Additionally, in an August 2021 correspondence, the Veteran requested the Board to make a decision on his appeal based on the evidence in file. See August 2021 VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim. As such, the claim must be decided based upon the available evidence of record. Here, there is no medical evidence in the file addressing whether there is a connection between any claimed current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, and the acoustic trauma to which the Veteran reported he was exposed during service. There also is no medical evidence confirming the Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. The Veteran's MOS of Clerk would not indicate a likely exposure to hazardous noise during service. However, the Veteran's reports that he was exposed to the noise from pistols without hearing protection while in basic training and his DD Form 214 demonstrate commendation as a "Sharpshooter (Rifle)." Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise during his active duty service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Regarding the Veteran's claim for bilateral hearing loss, there is no evidence of record showing that the Veteran has a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's claim that he has bilateral hearing loss that warrants entitlement to service connection. As a lay person, the Veteran is competent only to provide statements within his own personal knowledge, such as things he can witness or experience with his own senses, but not statements requiring expertise or special training. See Layno v. Brown,6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994);38C.F.R. §3.159(a)(2). A diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes requires some type of expertise or specialized training. Further, the Veteran does not contend, and the evidence does not show, that the Veteran had any hearing loss for VA purposes which manifest during or within one year of service or that he has had continuity of symptomatology since service. Although the Veteran reported in-service noise exposure, he also reported noise exposure outside of military service. Ultimately, there is no medical evidence of record establishing a nexus between any potentially existing hearing loss and the Veteran's service. Regarding the Veteran's tinnitus, it is not in dispute that the Veteran has a diagnosis of tinnitus. Tinnitus is, by definition, "a noise in the ears, such as ringing, buzzing, roaring, or clicking. It is usually subjective in type." See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1914 (30th ed. 2003). Because tinnitus is "subjective," its existence is generally determined by whether or not the Veteran claims to experience it. For VA purposes, tinnitus has specifically been found to be a disorder with symptoms that can be identified through lay observation alone. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). (Continued on the next page) However, the Veteran does not contend, and the evidence does not show, that the Veteran's tinnitus was manifest during or within one year of service or that he has had continuity of symptomatology since service. There is no medical evidence of record establishing a nexus between the Veteran's tinnitus and his service. In summation, the preponderance of the evidence of record is against the claims. The evidence is not in equipoise, and thus the benefit of the doubt is not for consideration. Accordingly, the Veteran's claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus must be denied. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Cheng, 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.