Citation Nr: 21030890 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-48 038A DATE: May 19, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1970 to March 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2021, the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing. Service Connection In general, service connection may be granted for a disability or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2018). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical and lay evidence, with due consideration to VA's policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001). Indeed, in Jefferson v. Principi, 271 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), citing its decision in Madden, recognized that that Board had inherent fact-finding ability. Id. at 1076; see also 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a) (West 2002). Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to weigh and assess the evidence. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992). Bilateral hearing loss The Veteran reports that he is entitled to service connection for his bilateral hearing loss. In support, the Veteran reports diminished hearing during and since service, which he attributes to hazardous noise exposure during military service. VA may only find hearing loss to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies of 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. VA acknowledges that the Veteran was exposed to in-service acoustic trauma and service connection has been established for the Veteran's tinnitus. That grant of service connection was based on a VA examiner's opinion in which the examiner noted that the Veteran had a diagnosis of clinical hearing loss and reported that his tinnitus was at least as likely as not a symptom associated with the hearing loss, as tinnitus is known to be a symptom associated with hearing loss. In sum, the examiner opined that based on the Veteran's history of hazardous noise exposure during the military and current hearing thresholds, the Veteran's tinnitus was at least as likely as not caused by or related to military noise exposure. The Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss. See VA medical examination (August 2015). Thus, the Veteran has a current condition, and establishes the first element for service connection. Additionally, he receives medical treatment and hearing aids from the VA for his hearing loss condition. See VA medical treatment record (June 2015). The Board acknowledges the August 2015 VA examiner negative nexus opinion stating that it was less likely as not that his hearing loss is related to service. See VA medical examination (August 2015). However, the same examiner opined that his service-connected tinnitus was caused by military noise exposure and it was also a symptom associated to his diagnosis of hearing loss, thus implicitly linking the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss to service. Additionally, the examination also noted that the Veteran meets the criteria for a hearing loss disability for VA purposes. Id and see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Moreover, the medical and lay evidence, shows that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma in service. Further, the Veteran credibly and competently provided sworn testimony that his condition started in service and has been recurrent ever since. The Veteran is competent to report hearing loss symptoms that began in service and the Board finds the Veteran's statements credible. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005); Layno. The Board finds that the evidence show that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss condition had its onset in service and have been recurrent since that time. As such, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alvarado- 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.