HEARING LOSS

STEVEN D. REISS · 2026 · Case ID: A26006352

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Air Force from November 1981 to August 1984, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The veteran claimed the hearing loss was due to in-service acoustic trauma and alternatively argued for secondary service connection due to service-connected tinnitus. The Board noted favorable findings that the veteran had bilateral hearing loss and conceded in-service noise exposure due to his MOS. However, the Board found the evidence insufficient to establish a nexus to service. The only audiological examination of record from June 2010 showed normal hearing in the left ear and mild hearing loss in the right ear, with the examiner opining the loss was not related to service. The veteran failed to attend a subsequent VA examination in June 2022, which the Board noted frustrated efforts to obtain additional evidence. The Board found the veteran had actual knowledge of the examination, and his failure to appear without good cause led to the denial. The Board concluded that the evidence did not indicate it was at least as likely as not that the hearing loss was related to service, and therefore, service connection was denied.

Rationale

Only audiological evaluation from June 2010 showed normal hearing in left ear and mild loss in right ear.; Examiner opined hearing loss not related to service.; Veteran failed to attend June 2022 VA examination after canceling a prior one, frustrating evidence development.

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

221223-307671

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26006352
Decision Date: 01/23/26 Archive Date: 01/23/26

DOCKET NO. 221223-307671
DATE: January 23, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's hearing loss was not present in service or until many years thereafter and is not related to service or to an incident of service origin.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1154(a), 5107(b); 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 November 1981 to August 1984.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2022 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the December 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected to have a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.

In October 2025, the Veteran testified at virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran's testimony has been considered herein, and a transcript of the hearing is of record.

As an appeal in which the Veteran requested, on the Notice of Disagreement, a Board hearing, the Board's decision is based on a review of the evidence of record at the time of the decision on the issues on appeal, evidence submitted by the appellant or his representative at the hearing, to include testimony provided at the hearing, and evidence submitted by the appellant or his representative within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran 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[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

SERVICE CONNECTION

Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the weight of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant.

To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must persuasively stand against a finding that the evidence is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal" to the evidence that supports the claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a "competent" source. The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007)
" or "nearly equal" to the evidence that supports the claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a "competent" source. The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (Observing that once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible).

The third step of this inquiry requires the Board to weigh the probative value of the proffered evidence in light of the entirety of the record. The Board also notes that under certain circumstances, lay evidence may be sufficient to establish a nexus. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994).

Lay evidence has been found to be competent with regard to a disease that has "unique and readily identifiable features" that are "capable of lay observation." See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308-09 (2007); see also Petitti v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 415, 427-28 (2015) (where the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found objective evidence of pain need not come from a medical professional; a lay person may provide the requisite confirmation).

In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms. 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).

The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993).

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.

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss on account of his in-service exposure to acoustic trauma. The Veteran alternatively argues that secondary service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted because his service-connected tinnitus caused or aggravated his hearing loss.

The rating decision on appeal made favorable findings that the Veteran has been diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss and that hazardous noise exposure was conceded based on the Veteran's military occupational specialty of Integrated Avionics Attack Control Specialist. The Board will not disturb these findings. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104 (b)(4), 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a) (all favorable findings towards claimants are binding upon all subsequent adjudicators, unless clear and unmistakable evidence is shown to the contrary to rebut such favorable findings).

The remaining question is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's conceded in-service noise exposure and his current bilateral hearing loss.

By way of history, the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied
diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss and that hazardous noise exposure was conceded based on the Veteran's military occupational specialty of Integrated Avionics Attack Control Specialist. The Board will not disturb these findings. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104 (b)(4), 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a) (all favorable findings towards claimants are binding upon all subsequent adjudicators, unless clear and unmistakable evidence is shown to the contrary to rebut such favorable findings).

The remaining question is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's conceded in-service noise exposure and his current bilateral hearing loss.

By way of history, the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied in November 2009 and July 2010. The Veteran failed to appear for a June 2009 VA examination that was scheduled to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's condition.

The Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in June 2010. Pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 10 15 25 35 40

LEFT 15 10 5 20 25

Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 92 percent in the right ear and of 100 percent in the left ear. The examiner found the Veteran's left ear within normal limits. The examiner at that time opined that based on their review of the Veteran's audiograms at entrance in October 1981 and on separation in January 1984, he found that the Veteran's hearing was normal at separation and that his hearing loss is not related to the Veteran's military noise exposure.

In connection with his current supplemental claim, the Veteran was scheduled for another VA contract examination in June 2022, however records indicate that the examination was canceled at the Veteran's request.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655, when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be decided on the evidence of record. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that the burden is upon VA to demonstrate that notice was sent to the claimant's last address of record and that the claimant lacked adequate reason or good cause for failing to report for a scheduled examination. Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262, 265 (1993); see also Connolly v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 566 (1991). The CAVC has held, however, that VA's "duty to assist is not always a one-way street." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). If a claimant wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining relevant evidence. Id.

The Veteran's failure to report for the examinations has frustrated the Board's efforts to obtain additional evidence with which to decide the claim as the record contains only one audiological evaluation from nearly 15 years ago which showed normal hearing in one ear.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's representative's argument that the Veteran did not receive notice of the scheduled examination, however the evidence of record reflects that the Veteran was aware of and canceled the examination, which shows that he had actual knowledge of the VA examination. Therefore, because the VA examination was necessary to adjudicate the claim, and because the Board does not find good cause for the Veteran's failure to appear, his claim must be denied. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b).

Here, the only evidence pertaining to a nexus between the Veteran's claimed disabilities and service is his assertion that the disabilities are directly related to service. The Veteran has not specified when the disabilities had their onset, let alone whether he began to experience symptoms. Service treatment records do not show that the claimed disabilities were diagnosed or treated during service and, as highlighted by the June 2010 audiological examination of record.

The Veteran has not submitted any corroborating lay or medical evidence showing hearing problems since service. As such, service connection, on a temporal basis, based on the onset of a chronic disease in service or within the one-year presumptive period, is not warranted. Walker, 708 F.3d 1331.

As to whether the Veteran's hearing loss is etiologically related to service, i.e., was caused by service, this is a medically complex issue requiring expert knowledge, skills, and testing. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at
Service treatment records do not show that the claimed disabilities were diagnosed or treated during service and, as highlighted by the June 2010 audiological examination of record.

As to whether the Veteran's hearing loss is etiologically related to service, i.e., was caused by service, this is a medically complex issue requiring expert knowledge, skills, and testing. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377, n.4. The Veteran has not been shown to possess specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion. Here, the competent medical evidence reflects that the Veteran's hearing loss disability is not related to service.

Overall, the evidence does not indicate that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's hearing loss is related to his conceded in-service acoustic trauma. Therefore, as there is no doubt to be resolved, service connection for hearing loss is not warranted.

STEVEN D. REISS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Woehlke, V.

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer