Citation Nr: 21025133 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 13-18 886 DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss did not originate because of the Veteran’s active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the U.S. Army from August 1969 to March 1971. The Veteran’s claim was remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in January 2018 for additional development. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for current disability arising from disease or injury incurred or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Service connection may be granted for any disease 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). Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for impaired hearing shall be established when the thresholds for any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz are 40 decibels or more; or the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels; or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2020). In August 2010, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination. The examiner noted noise exposure after service separation, including working as a “textile plant manager” for four years, without hearing protection.” The examiner found the separation examination audiometric testing were not accomplished with acceptable audiometric procedures, and that its data was therefore suspect. While the examiner found that while hearing loss and tinnitus were consistent with the Veteran’s reported noise exposure history, she noted that the effects of both gain and civilian noise exposure could not be eliminated as contributing factors. She reported that the evidence was therefore insufficient to provide the opinion as to the cause of the Veteran’s hearing loss without speculation. In his June 2016 Board hearing testimony, the Vietnam reported he served in Vietnam as a company armorer and fired small arms on a regular basis without hearing protection. However, his report of separation from the Armed Forces (DD Form 214) indicates that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty was an ammunition records, or inventory clerk. In a June 2016 lay statement from the Veteran’s brother-in-law, he indicated that the Veteran had hearing loss in 1974, and his hearing had declined since that time. In March 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination. The examiner noted that there was no report of hearing decrease or tinnitus in the Veterans’ service treatment records (STRs) or at service separation. The examiner concluded that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not due to his service and referenced the lack of a threshold shift in hearing between the Veteran’s induction and separation examinations. The examiner opined that even if all decibel measurements from the Veteran’s separation examination, were rounded up to the nearest 5 dB, there would still be no significant shift in hearing thresholds. The examiner also cited the Veteran’s reports of hazardous noise exposure for four years after separation from service and opined that this exposure could have led to the hearing loss observed by the Veteran’s brother-in-law. The Veteran was scheduled for another audiological examination but according to an October 2020 document, the examination was “cancelled at Veteran’s request.” The duty to assist in the development and the adjudication of a claim is not a one-way street. Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517 (1996); Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91 (1993); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Further under the law, a claimant has a responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the VA. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). The Veteran’s cancellation of the scheduled hearing examination leaves the record as constituted. The Board has considered the Veteran’s assertions that his bilateral hearing loss is caused by his military service. The Veteran is not competent, however, to offer an opinion as to the etiology of this type of medical condition due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462 (2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). On this record, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss originated during service. There is no competent medical evidence that the Veteran’s hearing loss began in or because of service. Therefore, service connection is not warranted, and the claim is denied. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Wozniak, 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.