Citation Nr: 21073654 Decision Date: 12/09/21 Archive Date: 12/09/21 DOCKET NO. 18-01 798 DATE: December 9, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. Service connection for residuals of left hand injury is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability is the result of noise exposure during active service. 2. The Veteran's tinnitus is the result of noise exposure during active service. 3. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had residuals of left hand injury any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 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. 3. The criteria for service connection for residuals of left hand injury have not 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 August 1954 to August 1957. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the Veteran was scheduled for a Board hearing in October 2021. However, the Veteran did not appear for the hearing. Accordingly, the Board will proceed with appellate review of this appeal. Service Connection 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. Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 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). loss 1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability. 2. Service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran asserts that he has bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus due to service. Specifically, he asserts that such are related to his in-service duties repairing tanks and guns. The Veteran's service treatment records (STR) are unavailable for review, there are no audio metrics showing that you met the above criteria while in-service. Also, there are no other audio examination of record to determine whether the Veteran's claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is service connected. The medical records of note are the ones provided by the Veteran which reports that he has bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and that disabilities are connected to his active service. The Veteran's service records show that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was Generator Repairman and Auto F & E Repairman. The Veteran's Military record credibly proves that he served with Company D 123rd Ordinance Battalion (Armed Division) 1st Armored Division (AD) Ft. Polk, LA. See October 2016, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD-214). Thus, the Board concedes that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma (repairing tanks and guns) during his active duty service. See August 2016 Medical Treatment Record. For VA purposes, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 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. August 2016 private treatment records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disabilities are related to service. The Veteran provided a private audiological examination from August 2016. His puretone thresholds in decibels are as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 35 60 70 75 LEFT 20 25 60 70 75 The Veteran's speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) showed 76 percent in the right ear and 84 percent in the left ear. Here, the Veteran's puretone thresholds did reveal hearing loss for VA purposes and the speech discrimination score showed hearing loss for VA purposes in both ears. The audiologist opined that it is more likely that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus are a direct result from his military exposure he experienced in the Army. In light of the Veteran's noise exposure in service and the favorable opinion by the Veteran's private audiologist, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus that are cause by his conceded in-service noise exposure. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). There is no contrary opinion of record. 3. Service connection for residuals of left hand injury. The Veteran asserts that he has a left hand injury related to his active service. The Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's current left hand condition is related to his active service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. There are no service treatment records, VA examination records or private examination records that show that the Veteran has a current left hand disability or functional impairment of the left hand. Efforts to obtain service medical records from all potential sources were unsuccessful. See November 2017 Statement of the Case. The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis Missouri, in response to VA request, reported the records may have been destroyed in a fire at the Records Center in 1974. Id. However, the Veteran submitted a January 2017 NA Form 13055, Request for Information Needed to Reconstruct Medical Data, but in his requests, he made no mention of a left hand injury, as a result a search of alternate records sources was not possible. The Veteran claims that he has a left hand injury and experiences pain in his left hand but has no medical diagnosis or opinion as to his claim injury. The Board considered the Veteran assertions that he has pain in his left hand. Pain can establish a current disability if the pain results in functional limitation. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the Federal Circuit held that "pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosis of a present disease, can qualify as a disability" if it "reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity." Id. at 1367-69. Even if the Board finds in the Veteran's favor that there is a current functional impairment of his left hand, there is no competent evidence of record to support that the impairment is related to an injury occurred during his active service. Also, the Veteran has not provided a description or details of any inservice injury to his left hand. While the Veteran asserts that he has pain in his left hand, he does not assert that he had pain in his left hand during service or describe an injury to his hand during active service. The Board considered the Veteran's lay statement that he has pain in left hand. While competent to report pain, the Veteran has not put forth an explanation for why he feels this pain results in any current functional impairment or that he sustained an injury to hand during service. Therefore, nexus is not established. Based on the lack of in-service documentation of injury or description of an injury to hand during service, and the lack of competent evidence of any current disability or functional impairment of the hand, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's left hand condition is related to his active service. While the Veteran is credible and competent to report current hand pain. As such, service connection for residuals of a left hand injury must be denied. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Le, Tai D. 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.