Citation Nr: 21074159 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-52 408 DATE: December 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a bilateral hearing loss disability as defined by regulation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1980 to July 1983. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an appeal of a May 2017 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board previously remanded this case for additional development in March 2019. The matter has now returned to the Board for appellate review. As an initial matter, the Board observes that the Veteran has been granted service connection for tinnitus by the Regional Office (RO) in an April 2020 rating decision. As such, the Veteran has received a full grant of benefits for this claim. Therefore, the issue of service connection for tinnitus is no longer before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss and contends that he was exposed hazardous noises during his active military service. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases, such as sensorineural hearing loss, will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Impaired hearing constitutes a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; 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. The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels. Higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993). The auditory thresholds set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 establish when hearing loss is severe enough to be considered a disability eligible for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Turning to the record, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are silent as to any diagnosis or treatment for bilateral hearing loss during active service. The Veteran's Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is noted as a Hercules Missile Crewman. Pursuant to the Board's March 2019 remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2019 in connection with the claim. At the time of the examination, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 10 10 5 20 LEFT 10 10 15 10 10 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in the right ear and of 100 percent in the left ear. The average decibel loss was 11 in the right ear and 11 in the left ear. The examiner found that the Veteran had bilateral sensorineural hearing loss in the frequency range of 6000 Hz or higher. In light of the evidence above, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against the claim for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. Specifically, at the time of the October 2019 VA examination, there was no evidence that the auditory thresholds in either of the Veteran's ears, in any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz, had been 40 decibels or greater, or that the auditory thresholds for at least three of those frequencies in either ear were 26 decibels or greater during testing, and this examination also showed that the Veteran's speech recognition ability was 100 percent bilaterally. Based on the above findings, the objective evidence of record indicates that the Veteran does not have a current bilateral hearing loss disability that meets the criteria to be considered a disability for VA rating purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Board notes that the Veteran might have been exposed to loud noises during service. However, the competent evidence establishes that the Veteran does not have a bilateral ear hearing loss disability as defined by VA. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Therefore, service connection must be denied. Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the Board finds that there is no audiological evidence of record to support a claim for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection. Consequently, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). E. BLOWERS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Scanlan, 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.