Citation Nr: 21013052 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 20-23 993 DATE: March 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The record evidence shows that the Veteran likely was exposed to significant in-service noise while working as a U.S. Air Force weapons control systems mechanic on multiple aircraft. 2. The record evidence shows that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to active service or any incident of service, including as due to in-service exposure to significant acoustic trauma. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2019). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from June 1960 to June 1964 in the U.S. Air Force. He also had additional unverified U.S. Air Force Reserves. A virtual Board hearing was held in December 2020 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. Because the Veteran currently lives within the jurisdiction of the RO in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that facility has jurisdiction in this appeal. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting the Veteran’s claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred each of these disabilities during active service, including as due to in-service exposure to significant acoustic trauma while working as a U.S. Air Force weapons control systems mechanic on multiple aircraft, and experienced continuous post-service disability. The record evidence does not support the lay assertions of an etiological link between either bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus and active service. It shows instead that, although the Veteran likely was exposed to significant in-service noise and experiences current disability due to bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, neither of these disabilities is related to service. The available service treatment records show that, at his enlistment physical examination in June 1960, the Veteran’s hearing was 15/15 (or within normal limits) bilaterally. On an audiological evaluation in July 1960, the Veteran’s pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:   HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 LEFT -5 -5 -10 -5 -5 On an audiological evaluation in July 1961, the Veteran’s pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 0 0 -5 X 5 LEFT 5 5 5 X 0 It was noted that the Veteran “seldom or never” wore ear protection during exposure to loud noise. At his separation physical examination in November 1963, the Veteran’s pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 0 -5 0 X 0 LEFT -5 -5 -5 X -5 He reported an in-service medical history of ear, nose, and throat trouble which the in-service examiner related to experiencing multiple sore throats. The Board notes that the absence of contemporaneous records does not preclude granting service connection for a claimed disability. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding lack of contemporaneous medical records does not serve as an "absolute bar" to the service connection claim); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) ("Board may not reject as not credible any uncorroborated statements merely because the contemporaneous medical evidence is silent as to complaints or treatment for the relevant condition or symptoms"). The Veteran’s DD Form 214 shows that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was weapons control systems mechanic. His service personnel records show that his in-service duties included maintaining and repairing weapons systems on multiple U.S. Air Force aircraft. This evidence persuasively suggests that the Veteran likely was exposed to significant noise during active service. The post-service evidence shows that, although the Veteran currently experiences disability due to bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, neither of these disabilities is related to active service. For example, the Veteran’s VA outpatient treatment records show that he received bilateral hearing aids in November 2016. On VA hearing loss and tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) in June 2018, the Veteran’s complaints were “he cannot follow conversations and often has to have people repeat themselves.” The VA examiner reviewed the Veteran’s electronic claims file, including his service treatment records and post-service VA treatment records. The Veteran’s pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 30 45 40 65 70 LEFT 30 50 55 70 75 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 80 percent in the right ear and 78 percent in the left ear. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is related to active service. The rationale for this opinion was based on a review of the claims file. The rationale also was based on a review of relevant medical literature. The VA examiner also opined that she could not determine with reasonable certainty whether tinnitus is related to active service “based on available evidence in the record or scientific knowledge.” The rationale for this opinion was, “There was not a shift in hearing during active duty service that is consistent with reported tinnitus.” This examiner opined instead that it was more likely than not that the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his post-service bilateral hearing loss “as tinnitus is known to be a symptom of hearing loss.” The diagnoses included bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus. In a lengthy statement submitted to VA in May 2020, the Veteran asserted that he was exposed to significant in-service acoustic trauma while working on the weapons systems of multiple U.S. Air Force aircraft. He also asserted that he never was issued any hearing protection at any time during active service. The Veteran testified at his December 2020 virtual Board hearing that he wore bilateral hearing aids. He also testified that he was constantly exposed to loud noise while working as a U.S. Air Force weapons systems technician. He testified further that he experienced constant ringing in his ears and bilateral hearing loss since his service separation. See Board hearing transcript dated December 7, 2020, at pp. 2 4. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred his current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus during active service and experienced continuous post-service disability. The record evidence does not support his lay assertions regarding an etiological link between either of these disabilities and active service. The Board recognizes that the Veteran likely was exposed to significant in-service noise as a result of his duties as a U.S. Air Force weapons control systems mechanic and weapons systems technician working on multiple aircraft. The Board also recognizes that the Veteran experiences current disability due to bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and wears bilateral hearing aids provided to him by VA. Contrary to his lay assertions, the record evidence (VA examination conducted in June 2018) shows that neither bilateral hearing loss nor tinnitus is related to active service. The June 2018 VA examiner specifically opined that it was less likely than not that bilateral hearing loss is related to active service. Although this examiner stated that she could not determine with reasonable certainty whether tinnitus is related to active service “based on available evidence in the record or scientific knowledge,” she also concluded that tinnitus is related to post-service bilateral hearing loss “as tinnitus is known to be a symptom of hearing loss.” Taken together, this evidence shows that neither bilateral hearing loss nor tinnitus is related to active service. More importantly, all of the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinions were fully supported. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (finding that a medical opinion "must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). The Veteran finally has not identified or submitted any equally probative evidence demonstrating his entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus. The Board acknowledges his lengthy lay statement submitted in support of his claims in May 2020. This statement largely pertains to his in-service exposure to significant noise. The Board already has conceded the likelihood of such exposure based on his in-service duties. This statement also discusses certain of his post-service VA audiology outpatient treatment visits. None of these visits included audiometric testing results or opinions concerning the nature and etiology of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. These records were not relied upon in adjudicating the currently appealed claims. The Board finally does not doubt that the Veteran finds his current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus to be debilitating. Nevertheless, his opinion with regard to the cause of this hearing loss is outweighed by the opinion provided by the VA examiner, who is a trained expert regarding audiological etiology. As such, the record evidence does not support granting service connection for either of these disabilities. In summary, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus is not warranted. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.