Citation Nr: 21031931 Decision Date: 05/25/21 Archive Date: 05/25/21 DOCKET NO. 15-02 799 DATE: May 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Veteran's currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss disability is related to hazardous noise exposure sustained in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1986 to February 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously remanded by the Board in November 2018 to obtain an addendum opinion to consider a study identified by the Veteran's representative in the October 2018 Informal Hearing Presentation. The Board notes an addendum opinion addressing the study issued in September 2019. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the prior remand instructions and no further action is necessary. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (2008). A supplemental statement of the case was issued to the Veteran in March 2020. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, to establish service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. The Veteran contends that his current bilateral hearing loss is due to his acknowledged in-service noise exposure. The Veteran is currently diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, and audiometric testing at the October 2014 VA examination demonstrated decreased hearing acuity at a level considered to be a disability for VA service connection purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The first element of service connection is therefore met. The Veteran's described in-service excessive noise exposure is found to be consistent with his military occupational specialty of strategic aircraft maintenance specialist. The second element of service connection is therefore also met. With respect to the third element, or a nexus, a review of the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) shows audiometric testing which indicates normal hearing at the time of the last in-service audiogram of record dated April 1989. The Veteran reported that he was an aircraft mechanic for B-52s, with eight TF-33 engines per aircraft and that many times while working on engines, they were running and the noise level was incredible and continuous. See June 2014 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran reported that he first experienced decreased hearing acuity during active duty service as an aircraft engine mechanic and that he used earmuff protection during service, but because the earmuffs also served as a communication device, he did not also use ear plugs. The Veteran reported that the eight engines typically ran while he worked, and that during pre-flight, would be at 80 to 100 percent, and that he had to stand in a Bombay door, noted as a small enclosed space, during his 8-12 hour shifts. See October 2016 VA Audiology Examination. The Veteran also reported that following a shift, his ears would ring. The Veteran described that he was subjected almost daily to significant noise exposure from the B-52 aircraft engines and the MA-1A engines that were used to start the B-52s. He reports that he was given "ear buds" for protection but that these had to be removed to clearly hear engine test runs. He also reported that he stood in Bombay doors when engines were running and the noise exposure was clearly deafening. The Veteran contends that he entered active duty service with his hearing intact and left active duty service with a hearing deficiency. See February 2012 Statement. The Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced symptoms of difficulty hearing and that his symptoms have continued since service. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect, as his contention is consistent with the circumstances of his service as a Strategic Aircraft Maintenance Specialist. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). June 2011, October 2014, and August 2015 VA examiners, as well as a November 2019 VA examiner, opined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss was less likely due to acknowledged in-service noise exposure. The reasoning, in large part, was based on normal hearing test results at entrance and separation. The Veteran was additionally noted to have post-service occupational noise exposure working as a contractor where he uses hearing protection (plugs). The absence of in-service evidence of hearing loss is not fatal to a claim for service connection. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). When a Veteran does not meet the regulatory requirements for a disability at separation, he can still establish service connection by submitting evidence that a current disability is causally related to service. Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 159-160. Further, evidence of a current hearing loss disability (i.e., one meeting the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, as noted above), and a medically sound basis for attributing such disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the Veteran's statements are competent, as he reported observable symptoms that he experienced. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The Board acknowledges the Veteran's military occupation specialty as a strategic aircraft maintenance specialist, and his competent lay assertions of the in-service onset of hearing loss. Although there is no positive opinion of record, the Veteran has in-service noise exposure, a currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss disability for VA benefit purposes, and an award for service connection for tinnitus based on in-service noise exposure, which tends to support the Veteran's contention that noise exposure led to damage to his ears, to include his bilateral hearing loss. While the record indicates the Veteran experienced post-service occupational noise exposure, the evidence is found to at least be evenly balanced such as to allow for resolution of the doubt in the Veteran's favor. A grant of service connection is therefore warranted, and the appeal is granted. A. SOLOMON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Battaile 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.