Citation Nr: 21073376 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-51 177 DATE: December 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is causally or etiologically due to his time in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are 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 had active service from January 1981 to January 1985. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from a February 2016 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 February 2021 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is associated with the claims file. In June 2021, the Board remanded this claim for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran asserts his bilateral hearing loss is due to exposure to acoustic trauma during service while serving on the flight line. The Board notes that service connection has been granted for tinnitus. See September 2016 rating decision. 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 claim. 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 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 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. See January 2016 VA examination. As such, Shedden element (1) is met. Next, the Board notes that exposure to acoustic trauma has been conceded. The RO noted the Veteran's military occupational specialty was an aircraft armament system specialist, which the service department indicated has a high probability of noise exposure. See September 2016 rating decision. As such, Shedden element (2) is also met. As for Shedden element (3), nexus, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is due to service. The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion in September 2015. The audiologist noted the audiogram indicated the Veteran's hearing loss was consistent with noise exposure. After an audiological evaluation and interview with the Veteran, the audiologist opined that the noise exposure from the flight line during service was likely a contributing factor to the Veteran's hearing loss. The audiologist noted the Veteran reported no other sources of noise, occupationally or recreationally, but served four years in the service, working on the flight line. The Board acknowledges the January 2016 and June 2021 VA examiners' negative opinions that the Veteran's hearing loss is not likely due to service because the Veteran had normal hearing at discharge, no significant shift in threshold from induction to discharge and delayed noise-induced hearing loss is unlikely as reported by various medical studies. However, the Board finds the September 2015 private audiologist's opinion at least as persuasive as the negative VA medical opinion. Significantly, the private audiologist explained that the Veteran demonstrates a decrease in hearing that is consistent with noise exposure and other than his time in service when exposed to the flight line, there were no other sources of noise, occupationally or recreationally, to cause his hearing loss. The Board finds no adequate basis to reject the evidence of record that is favorable to the Veteran, based on a lack of credibility or probative value. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 26 (1998). 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. The Veteran has a current diagnosis, exposure to acoustic trauma during service, and a medical opinion that relates his current diagnosis to his time in service. As such, service connection for bilateral hearing loss 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.