Citation Nr: 21030536 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 18-52 276 DATE: May 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is attributable to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1960 to January 1965. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the proceeding is associated with the electronic claims file. In January 2021, the Board reopened the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and remanded the matter for further development. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with its remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection on a direct basis, the record must contain: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran contends that his hearing loss is related to in-service acoustic trauma. The Board concludes that while the Veteran has a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes, and the evidence shows that the Veteran had in-service acoustic trauma due to his military occupational specialty (MOS) as an air policeman, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that his current bilateral hearing loss began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. A November 2013 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to service, to include noise exposure. She reasoned that the Veteran's discharge audiogram was within normal limits. She indicated that continuous and repeated exposure to loud noise may cause permanent hearing loss; but, since the damage from noise exposure occurs at the time of the exposure, a normal audiogram subsequent to noise exposure would verify that hearing recovered without permanent hearing loss. The examiner also noted that the Veteran's civilian occupational noise exposure includes manufacturing of farm equipment. In February 2021, an addendum VA medical opinion again found that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to his noise exposure during service. The examiner considered whether the Veteran's in-service and post-service noise exposure contributed to his bilateral hearing loss. The examiner noted that the Veteran's thresholds were well within normal range at separation from service. The examiner also noted that the Veteran's post-service employee medical records indicate that he first sought treatment for hearing loss in 2000, but no standard threshold shift was found from the baseline audiogram 16 years prior. The examiner indicated that the Veteran worked in manufacturing for 34 years and did not wear hearing protection for approximately 28 of those years. Thus, she concluded that the Veteran's hearing loss is less likely than not related to hazardous in-service noise exposure. The Board finds the February 2021 VA medical opinion to be highly probative because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). As a result, the Board accepts the VA examiner's opinion as the most probative evidence as to whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is attributable to service. While the Veteran believes that his bilateral hearing loss is related to service, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, that goes beyond a simple and immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the Board has also considered whether the Veteran's hearing loss may be granted on a presumptive basis due to chronicity of symptoms. However, the Veteran's service treatment records do not contain complaints or diagnosis of hearing loss and the evidence does not show that hearing loss manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. Thus, there has been no showing of a continuity of symptomology or chronicity since service sufficient for establishing service connection. In sum, the Board finds that no competent evidence exists that indicates the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to his service, to include his noise exposure therein. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply, and the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski,1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Robinson, 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.