Citation Nr: A26032905 Decision Date: 04/09/26 Archive Date: 04/09/26 DOCKET NO. 210809-177644 DATE: April 9, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The appellant does not have a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant had active service in the United States Army from June 30, 2010, to September 16, 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2021 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Veterans Benefits Administration (the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ)), which denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In August 2021, VA timely received the appellant's notice of disagreement (NOD), via VA Form 10182, appealing that decision to the Board, and requesting a Hearing with a Veterans Law Judge. The appellant participated in a Board hearing in November 2021. A transcript of this proceeding is of record. Evidentiary Window When an appellant has requested a Board hearing, the Board may only consider the evidence of record before the AOJ at the time of its decision on the issue(s) on appeal, evidence submitted by the appellant or her representative at the Board hearing, to include testimony provided at the hearing; and evidence submitted within 90 days following the Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300(a), 302(a). If additional evidence was submitted between the dates of the AOJ decision and the hearing, the Board will not consider it unless it is resubmitted during the 90 days following each of these actions. If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the appellant may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included with this decision. See also Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. The appellant contends that she currently suffers from a bilateral hearing loss disability due to her military service. In the April 2021 rating decision, the AOJ favorably found (1) hearing loss is a chronic disease which may be presumptively linked to military service; (2) sensorineural hearing loss is a chronic disease which may be presumptively linked to service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge; and (3) a qualifying event of in-service noise exposure was conceded based on the appellant's military occupational specialty of Interior Electrician. Favorable findings made by the AOJ are generally binding on the Board, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. See 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c); 20.801(a). Such evidence is not present in this case. Applicable Law Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For hearing loss, specifically, a "current disability" is defined as a matter of regulation. For purposes of VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 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 Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Analysis The threshold question before the Board is whether the appellant has a current disability as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The appellant was afforded a VA hearing loss examination in March 2021. See VA Hearing Loss Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), March 24, 2021. On examination, the Puretone thresholds in decibels (dB) were as follows: Hertz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Right 15 5 10 5 0 Left 15 10 15 10 0 The speech discrimination scores were recorded as 100 percent in both ears. The appellant was diagnosed with normal hearing bilaterally. The clinician concluded that there were "no findings, signs and or symptoms to support a diagnosis." Id. During the November 2024 Board hearing, the appellant testified that she does not always hear people and has to sometimes read lips to try and understand what is going on in a conversation. See Hearing Transcript, November 21, 2024. In January 2025, the appellant submitted a January 2025 private examination report. See Private Treatment Record, January 14, 2025. Puretone thresholds in decibels (dB) were as follows: Hertz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Right 10 5 25 25 20 Left 10 10 20 25 25 The word recognition scores were recorded as 96 percent in the right ear and 100 percent in the left ear. Id. The audiologist noted that Puretone thresholds revealed slight sensorineural hearing loss rising to normal hearing sensitivity sloping to mild sensorineural hearing loss bilaterally. Id. Speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test were not provided. The appellant's contends that she has bilateral hearing loss which is related to her military service. While the appellant is competent to describe trouble hearing, she is not competent to diagnose herself with a hearing loss disability for VA purposes because such a diagnosis is not capable of lay observation, it requires audiometric test findings. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. The audiological evaluations of record do not establish (1) an auditory threshold that is 40 decibels or greater; (2) three auditory thresholds of 26 decibels or greater; or (3) Maryland CNC Word Test scores less than 94 percent. Therefore, the Board concludes that the appellant does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Absent proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Failing to establish Shedden element (1), current diagnosis, the Board need not address the additional elements to establish service connection. See Shedden, supra. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the appellant has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. As such, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application and the claim is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 510 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. K.A. KENNERLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Camille NeSmith 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.