Citation Nr: 21025862 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-48 073A DATE: April 29, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is in at least relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in or otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1970 and November 1971. This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) arose from a March 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). See May 2016 Notice of Disagreement (NOD); September 2017 Statement of the Case (SOC); September 2017 Substantive Appeal (VA Form 9). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a March 2021 hearing. See March 2021 Hearing transcript. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran testified to in-service exposure to weapons fire noise, including howitzers and tanks, without hearing protection. March 2021 Hearing transcript. The Veteran testified to experiencing some hearing loss during service, but he was unsure of the level of impairment. Id. The Veteran also testified that his jobs since separation either provided hearing protection or was not in a noisy environment. Id. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection is established when there is competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Service connection may also 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). 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(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). The evidence shows that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is considered a disability for the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385; February 2016 VA examination for hearing loss. The Board also finds that the Veteran’s testimony about his in-service exposure to weapons fire noise is consistent with his duties as an ammo handler. See November 1971 DD Form 214. The question remaining for the Board is whether the evidence supports a medical link between his current bilateral hearing disability and service. The Veteran’s medical examination during enlistment shows a hearing threshold of 0 decibel for both his left and right ears at the 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz frequencies. February 1970 Report of Medical Examination. Audiological findings during separation still showed 0 decibel thresholds at the 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hertz frequencies for both his ears, and that the Veteran reported no hearing loss. October 1971 Report of Medical Examination; October 1971 Report of Medical History. However, the Veteran’s subsequent medical examination for National Guard enlistment showed a right ear hearing threshold increase to 50 decibels at the 3000 Hertz frequency and 55 Hertz at the 4000 Hertz frequency. May 1983 Report of Medical Examination. The Veteran’s left ear showed an increase to 50 decibels at the 3000 Hertz and 4000 Hertz frequencies. Id. This is a significant increase in his hearing threshold level, a level which is considered a hearing disability by VA, within about 10 years after discharge from active duty. The Board also considered the Veteran’s testimony that he had impaired hearing during service due to his noise exposure. While the Veteran’s testimony is not probative for a specific level of his hearing loss, he is competent to report having experienced some level of hearing impairment. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Board finds the Veteran’s testimony probative as evidence he had some loss in hearing acuity during service. The Board notes that the Veteran is currently entitled to service connection for tinnitus. February 2016 Rating decision. The Board recognizes that the Veteran’s examination during separation and the February 2016 VA examiner’s opinions indicate that the Veteran had no change in his hearing acuity during service. See October 1971 Report of Medical Examination; February 2016 VA examination for hearing loss; August 2016 VA examination addendum. His audiological examination at separation, however, does not provide findings for the 3000 Hertz frequency, and the February 2016 VA examiner did not fully consider the Veteran’s lay statements about experiencing some hearing loss during service. This evidence still raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the Veteran’s current hearing disability was incurred in or otherwise related to service. In resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that his current hearing disability was incurred in or otherwise related to service. Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Lin 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.