Citation Nr: 21024217 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-11 836 DATE: April 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is attributable to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1960 to April 1961, with subsequent service in the Army Reserve. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2019, the Board remanded the matter for further development. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with its remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection on a direct basis, the record must contain: (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). As noted above, this matter was remanded by the Board in February 2019 in order to obtain further VA audiological evaluation. Subsequently, the Veteran was scheduled for an examination to take place in November 2020. The record indicates that the November 2020 VA examination was cancelled by the Veteran’s spouse. In December 2020, a VA examiner contacted the Veteran to schedule another audiological examination. At that time, the Veteran informed the VA examiner that he no longer wanted to pursue his appeal for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In December 2020, VA sent the Veteran a letter informing him that if he wished for the appeal to be withdrawn, to send notice of such in writing. To date, no response has been received. In this case, the Veteran canceled his VA examination without rescheduling and expressed that he longer wished to pursue his claim. The Board finds that this is, however, not a withdrawal of appeal. While it cannot be said that he failed to report, it can be said that he did not reschedule the examination. Rather, the record shows that he expressed a desire not to pursue the matter. The Board notes that “the duty to assist is not always a one-way street,” and a claimant has an obligation to provide VA information necessary to substantiate the claim. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Under these circumstances VA has met its duty to assist obligations and the Board’s prior remand directives have been substantially complied with. Accordingly, the claim will be adjudicated on the basis of the existing record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The Veteran maintains that his hearing loss is related to in-service acoustic trauma. The Board concludes that while the Veteran has a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes, and the evidence shows that the Veteran had in-service acoustic trauma due to his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a heavy weapons infantryman, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that his current bilateral hearing loss began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. A December 2017 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is less likely than not caused by or the result of an in-service event. She reasoned that the Veteran was active duty for six months, did not serve in combat, and did not serve overseas. She further indicated that his current auditory status is not consistent with noise induced hearing loss. Additionally, she noted that his service treatment records (STRs) are silent as to any concern, diagnosis, or treatment for hearing loss. While the Veteran believes that his bilateral hearing loss is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, that goes beyond a simple and immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).   In sum, the Board finds that no competent evidence exists that indicates the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to his service, to include his noise exposure therein. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply, and the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski,1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Robinson, 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.