Citation Nr: 21022598 Decision Date: 04/16/21 Archive Date: 04/16/21 DOCKET NO. 16-52 014 DATE: April 16, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has experienced decreased hearing related to bilateral hearing loss since his separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1966 to July 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a July 2014 rating decision. In December 2020, the Veteran had a personal hearing with the undersigned VLJ. In January 2021 the Board reopened the claim for service connection for hearing loss and remanded for further development. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the appellant or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000). Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss was caused by in-service noise exposure. Service connection is established where a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 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); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). When a chronic condition, such as sensorineural hearing loss, is present, a claimant may establish the second and third elements by demonstrating continuity of symptomatology. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Certain chronic diseases, such as sensorineural hearing loss, may be presumptively service connected if they become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of leaving qualifying military service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The absence of evidence of hearing loss in service is not a bar to service connection for hearing loss. The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels; higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993) (citing Current Medical Diagnosis & Treatment, Stephen A. Schroeder, et. al. eds., at 110-11 (1988)). But before service connection may be granted for hearing loss, it must be of a particular level of severity. For 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 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 Veteran is diagnosed with hearing loss for VA purposes. See July 2014, April 2018, and January 2021 VA examinations. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent as to any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of hearing loss. The Veteran’s MOS was Radio Operator which had moderate probability for hazardous noise exposure. His work during the service was as a Morse intercept listening to radio signals. He wore earphones and indicated it was not unusual for the radio signals to be so loud that one would have to “rip the headsets off your head.” The Board notes the Veteran is already service connected for tinnitus related to the same noise exposure. Thus, acoustic trauma in service has been established by the record. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Therefore, the question is one of nexus. See Davidson, supra. During the December 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran reported the onset of hearing loss during service that has continued unabated since service. This is supported by the evidence that he filed a claim for hearing loss in 1971. He was not given a VA examination at that time. The Board finds the Veteran competent to report the onset and continuation of hearing loss. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). The Board is aware that the July 2014, April 2018, and January 2021 VA examiners opined against relation to service based on the lack of a significant threshold shift at separation from service and the lack of hearing related complaints in service treatment records (STRs). However, service connection for hearing loss is not precluded if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a relationship between the Veteran’s service and his current hearing disability. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993). Accordingly, these examinations are inadequate. The Board notes that April 2014 private treatment records indicate the Veteran has chronic hearing loss likely secondary to noise trauma in service. The Board has attempted to obtain an adequate medical opinion, but conflicting evidence remains. The Board finds that additional delay of adjudication on this appeal on the merits is not warranted. There is probative evidence of record in support of this claim, to include the Veteran’s competent and credible statements of hearing loss since service. There is also evidence of record against the claim, including the three VA examinations provided to the Veteran. However, the VA opinions are of little probative value for the reasons noted above.   Thus, the evidence is at least in relative equipoise on this matter. When the evidence for and against the claim is in relative equipoise, by law, the Board must resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(b), 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 5. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt is resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Blevins, 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.