Citation Nr: 21025931 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 19-06 968 DATE: April 29, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is due to noise-exposure during her second period of active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active air service from August 1984 to March 1988 and from February 1991 to July 1991. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a November 2020 hearing. A transcript of that hearing is of record. The Veteran’s appeal was most recently before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the Board) in January 2021. In addition to granting claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability and migraine headaches, the Board also remanded the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss to afford her an opportunity to submit additional evidence and to provide her a VA examination to determine whether she has hearing loss for VA purposes. The Veteran received that examination in March 2021. The AOJ denied the Veteran’s claim in a March 2021 supplemental statement of the case. The Veteran’s appeal is once again before the Board. Entitlement to Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The first and second elements of service connection are met here. First, the March 2021 VA examination shows that the Veteran now has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. Second, the Veteran’s military occupational specialty during her two periods of active service was aircraft fuel systems technician. She was exposed to loud noises from aircraft engines and other flight line equipment during her periods of active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a). Thus, the question for the Board is whether her current hearing loss is due to noise exposure during active service. The Veteran did not report any issues related to her hearing during her first period of active service from August 1984 to March 1988. However, during her second period of active service from February 1991 to July 1991, the Veteran reported worsened hearing. She explicitly stated in an April 1991 medical questionnaire that her hearing had worsened. The Board notes that the Veteran continued to complain of worsening hearing during the balance of her service in the U.S. Air Force Reserves. Given the Veteran s noise exposure, and her reports or worsened hearing during active service, the Board concludes that entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is warranted here. In reaching this conclusion, the Board notes the negative nexus opinion proffered in the March 2021 VA examination. The rationale states that there is no evidence or worsening hearing during the Veteran’s active service. The March 2021 VA examination report states that the examiner completed a thorough review of the Veteran’s claim file; however, the rationale does not discuss the Veteran’s reports of worsening hearing during active service. As a result of the omission, the Board affords the negative nexus opinion no probative weight. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Douglas M. Humphrey, 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.