Citation Nr: 21067775 Decision Date: 11/05/21 Archive Date: 11/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-14 499 DATE: November 5, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty as an amphibious assault vehicle crew member, as well as a rifle marksman, in the United States Marine Corps from January 1997 until his honorable discharge in January 2001. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In April 2021, the Veteran and his spouse, E.C., testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing is of record. In July 2021, the Board remanded the case to the Regional Office for further development. Specifically, the Board directed the Regional Office to obtain a new VA examination addressing whether the Veteran has hearing loss for VA purposes. An examination was obtained in August 2021 and the claim is now before the Board for readjudication. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran asserts that he developed bilateral hearing loss due to his active-duty service. He also claimed entitlement to service connection for tinnitus, but that claim has already been granted and so not addressed in this opinion. Unfortunately, the Veteran does not have hearing loss for VA purposes. The regulation defining hearing loss is 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 and it provides: For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz 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. His first VA hearing loss examination took place in April 2016. He had mixed hearing loss in the right ear and sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. However, his hearing loss had not developed to the level of severity required by the regulation to constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes. His Maryland CNC score was 98 percent in the right ear and 100 percent in the left ear, while his decibel frequencies were as follow: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 30 15 20 15 LEFT 10 10 15 20 This level of hearing loss is not defined as impaired hearing under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran's most recent VA examination took place in August 2021 in response to the July 2021 remand. His Maryland CNC score was 96 percent in both ears. His decibel frequencies were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 20 25 30 LEFT 15 20 30 35 Although he has been diagnosed with sensorineural hearing loss in both ears, these puretone threshold levels do not reach the level of hearing loss required by VA. As a result, he does not have a current disability for VA purposes and has not met the first element of service connection. As such, his claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. In reaching this decision, the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt, however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the doctrine is not for application. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. A. Johnston, 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.