Citation Nr: 21067888 Decision Date: 11/05/21 Archive Date: 11/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-55 979 DATE: November 5, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his bilateral hearing loss disability is related to in-service noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § § 1110, 1131, 1154, 5103A, 5017; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION At the outset, the Board recognizes that documents in the file illustrate incorrect spellings of the Veteran's last name. The correct spelling is as noted above. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in an October 2021 video conference hearing. Service Connection The Veteran attributes his bilateral hearing loss disability to his in-service exposure to noise associated with his duties while in service. He served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1966 to July 1968. He served as a tank crewman. He contends that he has had no industrial or commercial acoustical trauma since leaving the military that could have possibly caused his hearing loss. See May 2016 notice of disagreement. During the April 2016 VA examination, he described his noise exposure as firing weapons with no hearing protection available. He provided competent, credible testimony describing the onset of his hearing loss as a result of his time in military service. This reported noise exposure is consistent with the Veteran's Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active-Duty forms (DD Form 214), which lists his primary specialty as armor crewman. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to report in-service noise exposure, including being around tanks, gunfire, and other hazardous noise, and that he experienced hearing difficulties during active duty. He is also competent to report first noticing hearing problems after being exposed to such hazardous noise, and that he experienced hearing problems since active duty. Furthermore, the Board finds his reports of in-service noise exposure credible as such are consistent with the type and circumstances of his military service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran's lay statements concerning his exposure to noise during his military service, and his lay statements concerning the onset, nature, and progression of his hearing problems are both competent and credible lay evidence of such. The Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination in April 2016 and it shows a hearing loss disability for VA purposes. Therefore, the first element of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, a current disability, is satisfied. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Turning to the question of whether there is nexus, or link, between the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability and his in-service noise exposure, the Board finds that that there is sufficient competent and credible lay evidence to establish that there is a likely continuity of symptoms from the time of service until the present. See C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The April 2016 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss is likely than not caused by or is the result of an event in military service. The rationale was based on the normal hearing shown bilaterally upon review of the enlistment and separation examinations. The Veteran has provided competent, credible statements and testimony describing the onset of his hearing loss, and how it has continued to present. There is evidence of in-service noise exposure. There is one negative opinion of record. Nevertheless, the Board finds the positive and negative evidence to be in relative equipoise. Therefore, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's in-service noise exposure did cause his current bilateral hearing loss disability, and that entitlement to service connection is warranted. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Talamantes, 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.