Citation Nr: 21008118 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 19-25 086 DATE: February 11, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss, including as due to service connected diabetes mellitus, type II (DMII), is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his bilateral hearing loss is related to his service, including his service connected DMII. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1964 to October 1968; he is the recipient of the Navy Commendation Medal. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge in February 2021. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for 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, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic (reliably diagnosed) 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, 1112, 1113, 1137; 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. Service connection may also be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran has stated that his hearing loss is related to his in-service noise exposure, which included printing press noise and noise of ships and aircraft carriers while in-service. See August 2019 VA Form 9. The Veteran has also stated that his hearing loss is due to his service connected DMII. See February 2021 Statement and Correspondence. When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Veteran has stated that his hearing loss is related to his in-service noise exposure. He provided lay testimony which supported this assertion. See February 2021 hearing testimony. The Veteran is competent to describe observable symptoms of hearing loss and relate when such symptoms began. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran has also provided a medical journal article which discusses the link between DMII and hearing loss. The Board notes that the Veteran is service connected for tinnitus. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is warranted. The Board acknowledges that a VA examination indicated that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely as not related to the Veteran’s active duty service. However, the Board does not afford that examination any probative weight as it based the finding on the Veteran’s normal hearing at separation and did not address the impact the Veteran’s DMII had upon his hearing loss. Thus, the Board finds that service connection for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is warranted. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Parrish, 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.