Citation Nr: 21027460 Decision Date: 05/05/21 Archive Date: 05/05/21 DOCKET NO. 11-19 166 DATE: May 5, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss began in service and has continued to the present. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1971 to February 1975, with additional service in the National Guard. He appeals an August 2009 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A Board hearing was held in November 2017. A transcript is of record. In February 2018, August 2017, and February 2016, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim to the AOJ for further action consistent with the Board's remand directives. The claim is back before the Board for further appellate proceedings. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with its remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). A Veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called "nexus" requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that a disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), claims for chronic diseases enumerated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) benefit from a relaxed evidentiary standard. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Hearing loss is such a disease. To show a chronic disease in service, the record must contain a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. If chronicity in service is not established, a showing of continuity of symptoms after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes and was exposed to loud noises in service. See January 2017 VA examination report. As the Veteran explained, he worked as an aircraft mechanic while in service. The Veteran stated that he noticed his hearing loss while still on active duty. Specifically, about six months before he separated from service, he started to notice he had to turn the television and radio up to hear better. See November 2017 Board hearing transcript at 3-6. He also stated that both his mother, and eventually his wife, would become frustrated with the volume at which he kept the television and his inability to understand conversations. Id. at 7. Notably, the Veteran has consistently maintained that his hearing loss began in service, dating back to the filing of his claim for service connection wherein he stated his hearing loss disability began on his last date of active service in 1974. See September 2008 VA Form 21-526. As the September 2020 VA clinician acknowledged, the Veteran had normal hearing at enlistment and a shift is seen at 500 Hz at separation. See September 2020 VA opinion. Moreover, the competent and credible evidence of record shows that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss began during service and has been recurrent since that time. As discussed above, the Veteran reported that he first noticed hearing loss during service. See November 2017 Board hearing transcript at 3-6; see also July 2011 Veteran statement. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his hearing loss symptoms and the Board finds his report credible. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although he experienced some post-service occupational noise exposure, the Veteran explained that the noise was not as loud as the noises during service and that he was required to wear hearing protection. See November 2017 Board hearing transcript at 8-9. Collectively, the evidence of record sufficiently establishes that it is at least as likely not that the Veteran's current hearing loss had onset in service. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"). The Board acknowledges that the September 2020 VA clinician opined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is not related to service. However, the examiner's opinion carries no probative weight as it does not adequately address the Veteran's competent and credible report of hearing loss symptoms in and since service. Accordingly, the Board finds service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Katie Poe, 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.