Citation Nr: 21011445 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 18-30 487 DATE: March 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1968 to April 1972. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge in February 2021 via teleconference. A transcript of the hearing is not yet of record, but such is not necessary as this is considered a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his acoustic trauma he experienced due to his military occupation specialty as a radio operator. Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 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), 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. In this case, based on the evidence of record, the Board determines that service connection is warranted for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. As an initial matter, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements regarding his in-service acoustic trauma competent and credible given the nature of his service and his duties associated with being a radio operator. Thus, the Board concedes exposure to noise for purposes of establishing an in-service event. Moreover, there appears to the Board to be a significant tonal threshold shift in his hearing from the time the Veteran entered and separated from service. Specifically, his service treatment records reflect that he underwent an in-service audiological evaluation in February 1968 upon entry, and an audiological evaluation upon separation in March 1972, which reflects a significant tonal threshold shift of approximately 10-20 dB bilaterally at most frequencies. Next, audiological evaluations, including the May 2015 VA examination, performed since active duty reflect findings which demonstrate bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. As such, service connection is warranted. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board acknowledges the negative evidence, including the May 2015 VA examiner’s opinions which indicate the Veteran’s right or left ear hearing loss is not related to service. He provided the rationale that the Veteran had hearing thresholds within normal ranges during both enlistment and separation. However, this opinion is assigned less probative value as it fails to discuss the significant tonal threshold shifts the Veteran experienced in his hearing during service. As such, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise and service connection is warranted. 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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Billinger, Associate Counsel