Citation Nr: 21073382 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-50 729 DATE: December 8, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT A bilateral hearing loss disability was not shown in service or to a compensable degree within one year of the Veteran's discharge from service, and the most probative evidence indicates the Veteran's current hearing loss is not related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1986 to January 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The claim was first before the Board in January 2020, at which time it was remanded for further development. The Board notes that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss claim was previously denied in October 1992 and September 2013 rating decisions. After those decisions VA associated with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed at the time of the prior decisions and had not been associated with the claims file at the time of those decisions. Therefore, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), reconsideration of the prior rating decisions is warranted, notwithstanding the new and material evidence requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1). Service connection for bilateral hearing loss Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). Moreover, where a veteran served continuously for 90 days or more and sensorineural hearing loss becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. For the purposes of applying the law administered by VA, 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 provides that impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or more; when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss based on in-service noise exposure from his work on the flight line as an aviation ground support technician. A review of the record in this case shows no competent evidence of a hearing loss disability for VA purposes during service or within one year of service. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) include several audiograms performed during service, none of which show a hearing loss disability pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 in either ear. In addition, a March 1990 Report of Medical History completed by the Veteran reported no hearing loss. On his February 1992 claim for service connection, the Veteran reported bilateral hearing loss onset in 1987. On his September 2012 claim, the Veteran reported hearing loss onset in 1992. Given the significant discrepancy between these assertions, the Board does not find either assertion to be persuasive. The first indication in the record that the Veteran met the criteria for a right ear hearing loss disability pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 was in February 2015, on audiological testing conducted during a VA examination. The first indication of a left ear hearing loss disability pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 was in March 2020, also on audiological testing conducted during a VA examination. Since there is no competent evidence that the Veteran met the criteria for a hearing loss disability in either ear during service or within one year following his discharge, competent evidence linking the current condition with service is required to establish service connection. No such evidence exists in this case. The March 2020 VA examiner noted consideration of the Veteran's military occupational specialty of aviation ground support technician and the Veteran's report of repeated in-service exposure to hazardous noise from helicopters, jet engines, gas turbines, air compressors, munitions, engine rooms, generators, and heavy diesel vehicles. However, the examiner's opinion was that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of noise exposure during service. The examiner noted that the Veteran's November 1991 separation audiogram showed hearing within normal limits, with only one significant (greater than or equal to 15 decibels) threshold shift, specifically in the right ear at 2000 Hertz, over the duration of the Veteran's service. The examiner opined that "[t]he audiometric configuration in [the] veteran's pure tone thresholds at the time he separated from military service is not consistent with hearing loss due [to] 'acoustic noise trauma'. The lack of this configuration indicates that although [the] veteran may have been exposed to repeated acoustic trauma during his military service it did not adversely affect his hearing." The examiner's opinion is probative, as the examiner reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, examined the relevant facts, and provided an articulated rationale for the conclusion reached that is consistent with the evidence of record. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that his in-service noise exposure caused his current hearing loss disability. However, while the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, he has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to render an opinion as to the etiology of hearing loss. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). The etiology of a hearing loss disability that was diagnosed many years after the Veteran's service is a medically complex issue that requires medical expertise to determine. Accordingly, the Board finds the opinion of the 2020 VA examiner to be significantly more persuasive than the Veteran's lay assertions. In sum, the most probative evidence is against finding that the Veteran's hearing loss disability is related to his service. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Jesteadt, 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.