Citation Nr: 21024093 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-43 664 DATE: April 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in and due to his time in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the establishment of service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from December 1970 to January 1975. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is available in the record. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may also be granted for a disease first diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). When considering whether lay evidence may be competent, the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran’s disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “[w]hether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is a factual issue.”). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. The Veteran contends his bilateral hearing loss is caused by or related to acoustic trauma during service. The Veteran is service connected for bilateral tinnitus, effective December 16, 2015. 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 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 0 to 20 decibels. The Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. See January 2016 VA Examination. The evidence shows that the Veteran had significant exposure to loud noise and acoustic trauma during active military service. The Veteran’s DD Form 214 and service records indicate that his military occupational specialty (MOS) while in service was missiles facilities technician. The Veteran’s MOS is noted to have a high probability of hazardous noise exposure. The Veteran reported the onset of hearing loss within a year of separation from service. See February 2021 Board Hearing Transcript. He remembers he had to keep asking his wife to repeat things. Id. In this regard, the Board finds that the Veteran is both competent and credible to report on the events he experienced in-service as well as the observable manifestations of his hearing loss. The Veteran is considered competent to report experiencing hearing loss within a year of separation of military service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the Veteran’s MOS and current diagnoses are consistent with a finding that his hearing disabilities are due to service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. A January 2016 VA examiner gave a negative nexus opinion. While there are numerous service treatment records (STRs) showing audiograms, there was no audiogram taken upon separation from active duty. The Veteran’s separation examination was performed 10 months before he separated from service. Therefore, the January 2016 VA examiner’s opinion cannot be provided much probative weight. Taking the evidence as a whole, including his personnel records and the Veteran’s statements that he was exposed to loud noise while in service, and granting the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the Board will grant the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Holcombe, 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.