Citation Nr: 21032348 Decision Date: 05/26/21 Archive Date: 05/26/21 DOCKET NO. 18-07 301 DATE: May 26, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, his current bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have 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 August 1973 to July 1976. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in July 2016 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In March 2021, the Veteran and his spouse testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. At such time, the undersigned held the record open for 60 days for the submission of additional evidence, which was received later in March 2021. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(e)(1). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends his current bilateral hearing loss is related to in-service noise exposure coincident with his duties as a military policeman. Specifically, he testified that he did not wear any hearing protection during field training exercises, trips to the firing range, and flights on C-130s. He also details in-service exposure to excessive noise from rifles, pistols, machine guns, grenade launchers, aircraft, generators, and vehicles without hearing protection. The Veteran asserts he began to experience hearing loss symptoms shortly after his separation from service. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Where a veteran served for at least 90 days during a period of war or after December 31, 1946, and manifests certain chronic diseases, such as organic diseases of the nervous system, to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In an October 4, 1995, opinion, VA's Under Secretary for Health determined that high frequency sensorineural hearing loss is considered an organic disease of the nervous system and therefore a presumptive disability. Alternatively, when a disease at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) is not shown to be chronic during service or the one year presumptive period, service connection may also be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). However, the use of continuity of symptoms to establish service connection is limited only to those diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) and does not apply to other disabilities which might be considered chronic from a medical standpoint. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability 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. With respect to a current disability, VA audiometric testing performed in July 2016 revealed bilateral hearing loss as defined by VA regulation. Additionally, although the Veteran's service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis referable to bilateral hearing loss, the Board finds his reported in-service noise exposure is consistent with his military occupational specialty of military policeman. Thus, the remaining inquiry is whether such disorder is related to the Veteran's in-service noise exposure. In this regard, the record contains conflicting opinions as to the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. Specifically, the July 2016 VA examiner opined that such disorder is less likely as not caused by or a result of an event in military service. While she noted the Veteran's exposure to noise from artillery and small arms fire without hearing protection during service, she found that, based on the fact that his entrance and separation examinations reflected audiometric findings within normal limits bilaterally with no major threshold shifts, he did not incur impaired hearing or significant threshold shifts in either ear during military service. Conversely, a private audiologist, A.M., provided a favorable opinion in March 2021. In this regard, A.M. noted the Veteran's diagnosis of severe high frequency sensorineural hearing loss bilaterally as well as his history of noise exposure, to include during his military service, and opined that it is at least as likely as not that such disorder "occurred as a result of his military service." Likewise, a second private audiologist, A.N., opined in a March 2021 letter that the Veteran's hearing loss is at least as likely as not due to his military noise exposure. In support of such opinion, she noted that the Veteran presented with a severe to profound sensorineural high frequency hearing loss, a configuration that she indicated was consistent with noise-induced hearing loss; reported no significant noise exposure prior to service; and had in-service exposure to excessive noise from guns, aircraft, generators, and vehicles without the use of hearing protection. After a review of the record, the Board finds that the evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is related to his acknowledged in-service noise exposure. Specifically, the aforementioned audiologists are competent medical professionals who considered all relevant facts and accepted medical principles ,and provided rationales for the opinions. Thus, their opinions are entitled to equal probative weight. Consequently, the Board resolves all doubt in the Veteran's favor and finds that his current bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service. Therefore, service connection for such disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. M. Celli, 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.