Citation Nr: 21070503 Decision Date: 11/24/21 Archive Date: 11/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-41 900A DATE: November 24, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss began in service and has continued to the present. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to January 1970 with additional Reserve service. He appeals a May 2014 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In May 2021, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim to the AOJ for further action consistent with the Board's remand directives. The claim is back before the Board for further appellate proceedings. A Veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called "nexus" requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that a disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), claims for chronic diseases enumerated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) benefit from a relaxed evidentiary standard. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Hearing loss is such a disease. To show a chronic disease in service, the record must contain a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. If chronicity in service is not established, a showing of continuity of symptoms after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes and was exposed to loud noises in service. See September 2021 VA examination report; see also May 2021 Board remand. The Veteran stated that he has experienced hearing loss symptoms "constantly and increasingly ever since he served on active duty." See August 2020 Informal Hearing Presentation (IHP). Additionally, the Veteran submitted private treatment records from Dr. R.B. Regarding his hearing loss, Dr. R.B. noted that the Veteran's initial pattern of development began in the 1970s when he was in service and exposed to artillery firing without noise protection. For associated manifestations of the Veteran's hearing loss, Dr. R.B. listed a history of exposure to artillery or other military noise exposure. See October 2014 Dr. R.B. treatment notes. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his hearing loss symptoms and the Board finds his report credible. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Collectively, the evidence of record sufficiently establishes that it is at least as likely not that the Veteran's current hearing loss had onset in service. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"). Moreover, the Board finds that the statements contained in the October 2014 Dr. R.B. treatment notes to also be probative as to the issue of nexus and further bolster the Veteran's contention that his hearing loss is etiologically related to his active service. Accordingly, the Board finds service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 9, 55-57 (1990). DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Katie Poe, 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.