Citation Nr: 21029281 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-01 782 DATE: May 13, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Veteran has experienced decreased hearing related to bilateral hearing loss since his separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from December 1967 to January 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2019, the Board remanded this matter for further development. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). For VA purposes, impaired hearing is considered disabling when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz 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. Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran has hearing loss for VA purposes and his MOS was helicopter instructor pilot. The Board finds this to satisfy the first two elements of service connection. Turning to the third element, medical nexus, the evidence consists of the Veteran's own statements and VA examiner opinions. In December 2015, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. The examiner found that it was not at least as likely as not that the Veteran's current hearing loss was due to in-service noise exposure. The examiner's rationale was that the Veteran had normal hearing throughout service. The Board finds this examination to be inadequate as the examiner based their opinion solely on the Veteran having normal hearing throughout service and not considering the Veteran's competent statements regarding noise exposure. After remand, an addendum opinion was obtained. In a May 2020 addendum opinion, a VA audiologist opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's current hearing loss was due to in-service noise exposure. The audiologist's rationale was based on the Veteran having normal hearing throughout military service and that the Veteran's post-service audiograms from 1973 and 1974 show improved hearing when compared with his entrance audiogram. The audiologist noted that there is a study on delayed onset hearing loss, but did not find the study to support delayed onset hearing loss in humans as the study was done on mice and that the mice model of human diseases has failed in human trial studies. The audiologist provided citations to medical literature to support their rationale. (Continued on the next page) In contrast, in a July 2015 and January 2016 letter, the Veteran contends that he had hearing loss when he separated from service and that his post-service audiograms when he joined the National Guard do not accurately reflect his hearing at the time. The Veteran states that when his hearing was tested to join the National Guard as a helicopter pilot, the administrator of the test came into his booth three times to check if the equipment was faulty. After determining the equipment was not faulty, the administrator made a remark that the Veteran could barely hear which the Veteran confirmed and asked if that meant he failed and was told that nobody fails. The Veteran concludes his letter by stating that the hearing test results were "fudged" by mutual consent so that he could be a pilot in the National Guard and that he has had diminished hearing ever since. The Board notes that when comparing the Veteran's active duty entrance audiological examination with his post-service examinations the Veteran shows an improvement in his hearing, despite his service as a helicopter pilot. The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms such as diminished hearing. The Board finds him to be credible and affords his statement great probative weight. The Board finds the evidence to be in relative equipoise. If the evidence is supportive or is in relative equipoise, then the veteran prevails. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.