Citation Nr: 21021265 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-60 416 DATE: April 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT During the period on appeal, the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was manifested by auditory acuity no worse than Level II in each ear.  CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to September 1970. The undersigned Veterans Law Judge presided over a Board hearing in February 2021. A transcript of this hearing is of record. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran disagrees with his noncompensable rating for bilateral hearing loss.   Ratings for hearing loss, which range from noncompensable to 100 percent, are based on an organic impairment of hearing acuity as demonstrated by the results of speech discrimination tests together with the average hearing threshold levels as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hertz (Hz).  The degree of disability from service-connected hearing loss is rated based on 11 auditory acuity levels with Level I, representing essentially normal acuity, through level XI, representing profound deafness. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85.   An alternative rating method may be used when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more, or when the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1,000 Hz and 70 decibels or more at 2,000 Hz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86.  VA will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa based on whichever results in the higher numeral. Id.  In hearing loss rating cases, an examination for VA purposes must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a pure tone audiometry test.  Examinations are conducted without the use of hearing aids. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a).   Table VIa, “Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based Only on Puretone Threshold Average,” is used to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based only on the puretone threshold average. Table VIa will be used when the examiner certifies that use of the speech discrimination test is not appropriate because of language difficulties, inconsistent speech discrimination scores, etc., or when indicated under the provisions of §4.86.   Based on the evidence of record, a compensable rating is not warranted for the period on appeal.  Specifically, at an audiological evaluation in September 2012, the Veteran endorsed stable high frequency hearing loss, with normal hearing sensitivity. Then, a January 2016 audiometry reading shows mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss in both ears above 2000 Hz, as well as speech discrimination of 92% in the right ear and 80 percent in the left ear. There is no indication that the examiner used the Maryland CNC test. At a C&P examination in April 2017, the Veteran noted that his symptoms inhibit his social life. Upon examination, his pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:   HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 45 45 50 50 47.5 LEFT 40 45 50 50 46 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 88 percent in the right ear and 85 percent in the left ear.  An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment has not been shown.  Based on these values, the Veteran demonstrated Level II hearing loss in each ear. § 4.85, Table VI. Under Table VII of this section, the appropriate rating is noncompensable.  The Veteran’s April 2017 examiner noted some difficulty maintaining a seal over the Veteran’s ears. The Veteran also noted some technical difficulties. Subsequently, at his March 2021 C&P examination, the Veteran reported moderate to severe hearing loss. He reported not being able to have a conversation without his hearing aids.  Upon examination, however, a compensable difference was not observed. His pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:   HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 35 40 45 55 44 LEFT 45 45 50 60 50 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 96 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear.  An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment has not been shown.  Based on these values, the Veteran demonstrates Level I hearing loss each ear. § 4.85, Table VI. Under Table VII of this section, the appropriate rating is still noncompensable. Notably, no technical issues were reported with this examination. Accordingly, the Board finds it adequate for rating purposes.   In considering the appropriate disability rating, the Board has also considered the Veteran’s statements that his hearing loss is worse than reflected in his current rating.  Specifically, the Veteran reported at his February 2021 hearing that his hearing affects his ability to understand his grandchildren and wife. It also impedes him from hearing behind him and navigating, which presents possible safety concerns. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990).    Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility.  While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of his service-connected disabilities according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991).    In this case, the Veteran is not competent to state that his symptoms merit a higher rating for his hearing loss.  The competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran’s claimed disabilities have been provided by the medical personnel who have examined him during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations.  The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports) directly address the criteria under which these disabilities are evaluated.   Thus, the statements indicating that the Veteran’s hearing loss creates certain inconveniences that accompany hearing loss, lack the competence required to show entitlement to higher ratings. Based on the evidence of record, the Board determines that a compensable rating is not warranted for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. 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 Z. M.