Citation Nr: 21026995 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 16-27 586 DATE: May 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT The Veteran does not have a bilateral hearing loss disability as defined by VA law and regulations. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from August 1991 to July 1995. He was awarded the National Defense Medal, Marksman Qualification Badge with rifle Bar and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Bar with Grenade Bar. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2014 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The case was previously before the Board in February 2019, at which time the issue currently before the Board was remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Service Connection-Bilateral Hearing Loss For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be construed to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; or, when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 or 4000 Hz 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 requirements of section 3.385 need only be met for the purposes of showing a current "disability" for service connection purposes. The purpose of section 3.385 is to establish guidelines for determining when a hearing "disability" is present so that service connection may be granted. It does not preclude service connection for a current hearing disability where hearing was within normal limits on audiometric testing at separation from service or where hearing loss was shown in service but not to the disabling degree depicted in section 3.385. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss disability is due to active service. During the course of his service, the Veteran was rushed through a rifle qualifications course. The Veteran reported that hearing protection was not available during his training. The Veteran was a right-handed shooter and trained on M16, machine guns, hand-thrown grenades, grenade launcher, rocket launcher, and claymore mines. He reported mechanical noise exposure from generators, auxiliary power units, fans, diesel engines, gas engines, turbine oil compressors, pumps, mortars and incoming fire. The Board finds that the Veteran's report of hazardous noise is consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. As such, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma while in active service. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or diagnoses of a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes while the Veteran was in active service. The Veteran's August 1990 enlistment examination along with the July 1992 and July 1992 examinations were negative for hearing loss. The January 2016 examiner noted that the Veteran had normal hearing bilaterally on separation, based on an April 1995 audiogram from the Defense Occupation and Environmental Health Readiness System. (DOEHRS). The review file is negative for a copy of the April 1995 audiogram from (DOEHRS). The audiogram could not be located in the archive records. The Veteran was notified accordingly. See Correspondence received March 2020. However, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced decreased hearing acuity and tinnitus while in active service and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced symptoms of hearing loss disability and that his symptoms have continued since service. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. In August 2012, January 2016, and November 2020, the Veteran was afforded hearing loss examinations. The audiologic findings for each examination failed to show that the Veteran had a left or right ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2020). Specifically, the findings do not correspond to decreased hearing acuity at a level considered disabling for VA purposes for the left or right ear, and there is no additional post-service audiological testing for consideration, to include VA treatment records. Thus, a current left or right ear hearing loss disability is not found. In offering this conclusion, the Board does not disregard the Veteran's contention that he has a bilateral hearing loss. Although he is competent to testify as to his observable symptoms such as decreased hearing ability, whether hearing loss is of an extent considered a disability for VA purposes is determined by the application of a mechanical formula. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Thus, the Board is precluded from finding that a hearing loss disability exists absent a supporting audiological examination, which is not found here. In the absence of a bilateral hearing loss disability, further inquiry into the in-service or nexus elements is unwarranted as relevant thereto, and the Veteran's appeal is denied to this extent. Of final note, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence. Roya Bahrami Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C.Ivan Franklin 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.