Citation Nr: 21069151 Decision Date: 11/17/21 Archive Date: 11/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-25 059 DATE: November 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss meeting the criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 was not shown during active service or at any time thereafter. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from February 2009 to June 2009 and from August 2011 to September 2012. He served in Southwest Asia. The Veteran had additional duty with the North Dakota Army National Guard. Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran contends that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted as the claimed disability was manifested as the result of his conceded in service acoustic trauma. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) 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 in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Organic diseases of the nervous system, including sensorineural hearing loss, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Service connection for impaired hearing shall be established when the thresholds for any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz are 40 decibels or more; or the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels; or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 prohibit the award of service connection for hearing loss where audiometric test scores are within the established limits. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 158 (1993) citing Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). The service treatment records do not refer to hearing loss disability. An August 2010 audiological evaluation states that the Veteran exhibited pure tone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 15 5 0 10 LEFT 15 15 5 5 15 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has conceded the Veteran experienced acoustic trauma during active service. The report of a January 2015 VA audiology examination relates that the Veteran exhibited pure tone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 15 5 5 5 LEFT 0 10 5 10 10 Speech audiometry revealed bilateral speech recognition ability of 100 percent. The Veteran was diagnosed with normal bilateral hearing acuity. A December 2015 VA audiological evaluation states that: "hearing is within the normal limits bilaterally;" "speech reception thresholds were in good agreement with pure tone results;" and "word recognition ability was excellent bilaterally in quiet at a level equal to normal conversation." In his April 2017 Appeal to the Board, VA Form 9, the Veteran asserted that he had bilateral hearing loss which impaired his employment as a barber as he could not hearing his customers. The report of a September 2021 audiology examination conducted for VA states that "it's hard to make out what people are saying at times." On audiological evaluation, the Veteran exhibited pure tone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 20 15 15 15 LEFT 15 20 10 20 20 Speech audiometry revealed bilateral speech recognition ability of 100 percent. The Veteran was diagnosed with normal bilateral hearing acuity. The Veteran has not been objectively shown to have bilateral hearing loss during active service or multiple post service audiological evaluations. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran contends that he has bilateral hearing loss secondary to his conceded in service acoustic trauma. No competent medical professional has concluded that the Veteran had hearing loss disability which meets the criteria for 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran's claim is supported solely by his own statements on appeal. Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis or etiology when (1) a lay person is competent to identify a medical condition; (2) the lay person is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) finds that the Veteran's lay statements do not constitute competent evidence to establish a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran has not offered any medical qualifications. The Veteran is not competent to diagnose bilateral hearing loss. The question of such a diagnosis requires audiological and/or medical training and is too complex to be addressed by a layperson. Bilateral hearing loss disability meeting the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 was not shown during active service or at any time thereafter. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. J. T. HUTCHESON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Macek, M. A. 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.