Citation Nr: 21066050 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 18-50 877 DATE: October 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a bilateral hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulations. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from August 1979 to September 1984. In July 2021, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the matter on appeal for additional evidentiary development. As that development has been completed, the matter has been properly returned to the Board for adjudication. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service Connection Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.§§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, establishing service connection requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) 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, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Hearing impairment is considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In addition, certain diseases, such as sensorineural hearing loss, are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year after service. The presumption is rebuttable by probative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). When chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support a claim for such diseases. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b); 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 benefit of the doubt shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C.§ 5107; see Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. The Veteran maintains that she has a bilateral hearing loss disability that is related to noise exposure during her active duty service. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. Therefore, service connection is not warranted. The Veteran's service treatment records reflect hearing within normal limits at her enlistment and periodic examinations. In January 2014, the Veteran was provided a VA examination in conjunction with her claim. Pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 15 10 20 15 LEFT 25 15 15 20 15 Maryland CNC speech audiometry testing revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in both ears. The Veteran submitted the results of a private audiological examination performed in January 2021. As the results were provided solely in graph form, the Board requested that a certified audiologist interpret the private report. The interpretation was as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 20 20 25 25 LEFT 25 20 20 30 30 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in both ears; however, it is unclear whether the Maryland CNC word list was used. These are the only audiograms of record and neither reflect that the Veteran has a current hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes. Without probative evidence of hearing loss conforming to the requirements in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, the elements of service connection cannot be established, and the Board need not engage in any further analysis on either a presumptive or direct basis. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (holding that where the evidence does not support a finding of current disability upon which to predicate a grant of service connection, there can be no valid claim for that benefit); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). While the Veteran believes she suffers from a current bilateral hearing loss disability that is related to service, as a lay person, she is not competent to determine the presence or extent of hearing loss, as such requires medical testing and expertise to determine. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general 3.385 competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). Thus, her opinion in this regard is not competent medical evidence. The Board finds the VA examination and private audiological testing results more probative than the Veteran's lay assertions. In summary, the most probative evidence of record indicates that the Veteran does not have bilateral hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Accordingly, the Veteran's service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted, and the claim is denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, the doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Bush 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.