Citation Nr: 21012575 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 19-33 279 DATE: March 4, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss had onset in service or is otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability have not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to October 1967. He was scheduled for a Board hearing with a Veterans Law Judge in December 2020 but did not appear as scheduled. As of date, he has not provided any good cause for his absence. Therefore, the Board considers the request for a hearing withdrawn and decide the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.705(d). This matter is on appeal from a May 2018 rating decision. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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 or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran is currently seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss due to his exposure to hazardous military noise. VA regulations do not require hearing loss for VA purposes to be present during service. Rather, hearing loss, if sensorineural in nature, is a “chronic disease” listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a); therefore, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) applies. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Where the evidence shows a “chronic disease” in service or “continuity of symptoms” after service, the disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service. For the showing of “chronic” disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. With chronic disease shown in service or within the presumptive period, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz (Hz) 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 zero to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). The Veteran asserts that he worked as a crew chief on helicopters and then a flight operations specialist during his active duty. During his deployment in Vietnam, he was also exposed to loud howitzer blasts without hearing protection. The Veteran stated he has had hearing loss “for some time now” but that it has gotten worse over the last year. See VA Form 21-4138, received January 2018. The Veteran’s military personnel record show that he served in the 1st Air Calvary Division in San Francisco. It also reflected that he was stationed in the Republic of Vietnam and that he served in the 20th Artillery Battalion from October 1966 to October 1967. Thus, the Board concedes to some level of hazardous noise exposure. The Veteran’s service treatment records were silent for any complaints of hearing loss. His separation examination did not show hearing outside the normal range. However, the Board notes that the audiometric readings taken at the exit evaluation show a slight shift in his audiometric hearing. Post service, February 2018 VA treatment notes show that the Veteran was seen for an annual vesting examination. It was noted that the Veteran had poor vision and hearing loss. He was advised by the VA physician to have his hearing checked. The Veteran was afforded a VA audiometric examination in May 2018. There, he exhibited bilateral hearing loss. His puretone thresholds in decibels were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 35 45 65 75 LEFT 25 50 65 65 The puretone threshold average was 55 Hz in the right ear and 51 Hz in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 92 percent in the right ear and 88 percent in the left ear. Both ears showed normal hearing sensitivity sloping gradual to essentially profound sensorineural hearing loss from 250 to 800 Hz. The examiner noted the Veteran served 27.5 years as a police officer following his separation from serviced and experienced recreational noise exposure, with some use of hearing protection, for hunting/shooting and lawnmower use. The VA examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s left and right ear hearing loss is related to his military service. Upon review of the claims file, the VA examiner noted that there were no permanent threshold shifts in his hearing during service. Although his MOS concedes a high probability of noise exposure, his pre and post civilian occupation as well as recreational noise exposure (i.e. hunting) also concedes probability of a high frequency hearing impairment. His reported time of onset is approximately 45 years post military separation. Thus, it is more likely due to his history of occupational/recreational noise exposure or natural aging. Upon review of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s contention that his bilateral hearing loss had onset in service and is due to not wearing hearing protection. However, the weight of the evidence does not support his claim. His service treatment records were silent for any complaints or treatment relating to hearing loss. The Board also adds that the Veteran’s separation examination revealed audiometric readings within normal limits, in spite of a positive shift in threshold. However, a continuity of symptomatology could not be established. There is no indication that the Veteran was diagnosed with hearing loss for VA purposes within one year of separation from service. The claims file does not contain any complaints of hearing loss or treatment notes that would suggest problems with hearing within the first few years after he exited service. The Veteran’s first documented complaint of hearing loss was made during an annual checkup in 2018, over 4 decades after his separation from service. While not dispositive, the passage of time weighs against the Veteran’s claim. Maxon v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000). While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms such as reduced hearing and difficulty discriminating noises, he is not competent to opine on the etiology of his hearing loss, including due to not wearing hearing protection. Such determination must be made by a medical profession as it requires requisite medical knowledge and training, in which the Veteran is not shown to have. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board must therefore turn to the probative medical evidence of record, which remains the May 2018 VA examination report. Upon conducting an audiometric reading and reviewing the Veteran’s claims file, the VA examiner found no nexus between the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure and his current hearing loss. In his opinion, the Veteran did not exhibit a permanent shift in his in-service audiometric reading during service despite his exposure to hazardous noise. Rather, it was more likely that the Veteran’s post service noise exposure as well as his age are the cause of his current hearing loss. Other than his own lay statements, the Veteran has not submitted any objective medical evidence that would link his current hearing loss to his military service. Therefore, service connection is not warranted, and the claim is denied. As there is no medical evidence in significant conflict with the probative medical evidence of record, the preponderance is against the Veteran’s service connection claim. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Yeh, 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.