Citation Nr: 21032083 Decision Date: 05/25/21 Archive Date: 05/25/21 DOCKET NO. 14-12 181A DATE: May 25, 2021 ORDER Service connection for left ear hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's left ear hearing loss had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left ear hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1971 to July 1973. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in November 2016. The Board remanded this issue for additional development in April 2018 and December 2020. Service connection for left ear hearing loss. The Veteran seeks service connection for left ear hearing loss, which he contends had its onset in service and has been recurrent since that time. See November 2016 Hr'g Tr. The Board notes, the Veteran is already service connected for right ear hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. "To establish a right to compensation for a present 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"-the so-called "nexus" requirement." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77. For the purpose of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing is considered a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory threshold for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 Hertz is 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. When audiometric test results at a veteran's separation from service do not meet the regulatory requirements for establishing a "disability" at that time, he may nevertheless establish service connection for a current hearing disability by submitting evidence that the current disability is causally related to service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 160 (1993). All three elements of service connection are established by the competent and credible lay and medical evidence of record regarding right ear hearing loss and tinnitus. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran has a diagnosis of left ear hearing loss and suffered acoustic trauma when exposed to extreme loud noise in service while performing his duties as an infantryman. See December 2009 Application; see also November 2016 Hr'g Tr.; February 2021 VA Hearing Loss DBQ. Thus, the first two criteria have been met. Further, the evidence of record shows that his current left ear hearing loss began during service. At the November 2016 Hearing, the Veteran competently and credibly testified that he began experiencing difficulty hearing in service and that it has been recurrent since that time. Additionally, he stated that at his first post-service job, he was teased because of his difficulty hearing. See November 2016 Hr'g Tr. at 7. The Veteran reported he had no post service acoustic trauma because he used hearing protection while working as a warehouse worker. See July 2019 private examiner note. The Board finds that the evidence, including the Veteran's competent and credible testimony, shows that his left ear hearing loss initially began in service and has been recurrent since that time. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of his hearing loss symptoms and the Board finds his testimony credible. See 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). The Board notes that the February 2021 VA examiner provided a negative nexus opinion regarding the Veteran's hearing loss and service; however, the examiner acknowledged that the Veteran had some noise exposure as an infantryman from basic training and from active combat while in service. As the evidence shows that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss had its onset in service, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jacquelynn M. Jordan, 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.