Citation Nr: 21008571 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 819 DATE: February 17, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from July 1980 to July 1983. 2. Bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes has not been shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW Bilateral hearing loss was not incurred in service nor may it be presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1112, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Hearing loss is considered a disability for VA purposes when the threshold level in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; when the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies 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. Turning to the medical evidence, clinical treatment records dated in April 2013 reflected a diagnosis of mild to moderately sloping bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. No audiograms or test results were provided. While this record showed that the Veteran had some degree of hearing loss, it was unclear whether bilateral hearing loss was severe enough to be considered a disability for VA purposes. Accordingly, the Board remanded the claim in August 2020 in order to obtain a VA examination to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. October 2020 VA audiology testing results were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 10 25 20 15 LEFT 10 10 20 25 25 Speech discrimination scores using the Maryland CNC word test were 94 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear. These findings support a finding of hearing loss for VA purposes. As such, the examiner concluded that the Veteran had normal hearing in both ears and found no evidence of bilateral hearing loss. There are no other audiograms of record which contradict these findings. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes and service connection is not warranted. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that his disorder was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examination obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Kokolas, 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.