Citation Nr: 21072698 Decision Date: 12/06/21 Archive Date: 12/06/21 DOCKET NO. 16-03 336 DATE: December 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is causally or etiologically due to exposure to acoustic trauma during service. 2. Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran's tinnitus is causally or etiologically due to exposure to acoustic trauma during service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from February 1961 to September 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from a March 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. The requested hearing was conducted in August 2021 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is associated with the claims file. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). In general, service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181 (1992); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not necessarily accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence necessarily has the same probative value. Furthermore, in determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of matter, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Board notes that it has thoroughly reviewed the record in conjunction with this case. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence submitted by the Veteran or on his behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claims. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 129 (2000) (noting that the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant). The Veteran asserts his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are due to exposure to acoustic trauma during service. The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). For the purposes of applying the laws administered by the 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. First, the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability, as defined by VA regulations, and a current tinnitus diagnosis. See December 2015 VA examination. As such, Shedden element (1) is met for both claims. Next, the Board notes that exposure to acoustic trauma has been conceded. The RO determined the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) was an airplane captain, which had a high probability for hazardous noise exposure. See, e.g., DD Form 214; March 2015 rating decision. As such, Shedden element (2) is also met for both claims. As for Shedden element (3), nexus, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are due to service. The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion in September 2021. The private audiologist opined that it is more likely than not that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his military noise exposure, explaining that the Veteran had significant noise exposure during service from aircraft and the links between noise exposure and tinnitus, noise exposure and hearing loss and hearing loss and tinnitus are well known. The Board acknowledges the December 2015 VA examiner's negative opinion that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus are not likely due to service. However, the Board finds the September 2021 private audiologist's opinion at least as persuasive as the December 2015 negative VA medical opinion. The Board notes that the Veteran has consistently reported that his tinnitus began during service; however, the December 2015 VA examiner failed to consider or discuss the onset of the Veteran's tinnitus as occurring during service. Under the benefit of the doubt rule, where there exists "an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter," the Veteran shall prevail upon the issue. Ashley v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 52, 59 (1993); see also Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 206-207 (1994). Given the evidence of record, the Board resolves doubt in the Veteran's favor and finds that the evidence supports the establishment of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran has current diagnoses, exposure to acoustic trauma during service, and a medical opinion that relates his current diagnoses to his time in service. As such, service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is granted. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Andersen, 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.