Back to BVA DecisionsMIXEDService Branch ARMY Special Benefit NO SPECIAL BENEFIT Docket No. 250602-550860
HEARING LOSS
BETHANY L. BUCK · 2026 · Case ID: A26033022
Summary
The veteran, who served honorably in the U.S. Army from September 1961 to September 1964, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, pulmonary problems, and a bladder tumor. The Board found that new and relevant evidence, including the veteran's December 2025 hearing testimony and a July 2025 Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) memorandum, warranted readjudication for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems. The testimony addressed the veteran's hearing loss in relation to noise exposure and the progression of symptoms, and also detailed exposures to chemicals, solvents, and fumes potentially causing his pulmonary issues, which the VA conceded in the TERA memo. However, the Board found the veteran's testimony irrelevant to the bladder tumor claim, and no new evidence was submitted for that issue after the last denial. The veteran's prior claims for hearing loss and pulmonary problems were denied in December 2018, with the Board finding no link to service or compensable manifestation within a year of separation. The bladder tumor claim had a more complex history of denials and remands, with the last denial in October 2023, and no new relevant evidence was submitted for this claim. Consequently, the Board remanded the claims for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems for readjudication on the merits, while upholding the denial for the bladder tumor claim.
Rationale
New and relevant evidence submitted; Testimony addresses link to noise exposure and progression; Remanded for readjudication on the merits
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26033022 Decision Date: 04/09/26 Archive Date: 04/09/26 DOCKET NO. 250602-550860 DATE: April 9, 2026 ORDER New and relevant evidence having been received, readjudication of the previous denial for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. New and relevant evidence having been received, readjudication of the previous denial for service connection for pulmonary problems is warranted. New and relevant evidence having not been received, readjudication of the previous denial for service connection for a bladder tumor is not warranted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. New evidence was received after the December 2018 rating decision that is relevant to the issues of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and a pulmonary disorder. 2. New and relevant evidence was not received after the October 2023 rating decision, prior to the August 2024 rating decision on appeal, that is relevant to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, have been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). 2. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for entitlement to service connection for pulmonary problems have been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). 3. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor have not been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from September 1961 to September 1964. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2024 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the June 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on December 16, 2025. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) supplemental claim decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. §?20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the supplemental claim decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. However, because the Board is remanding the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). The Board notes that in April 2025, during the pendency of this appeal, the AOJ awarded service connection for a bladder tumor and, in an August 2024 higher level review decision, assigned an effective date of July 30, 2024. Regarding relevance to the present appeal, the June 2025 VA Form 10182 expressly identifies the specific issue to be appealed as entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor and August 2024 as the date of the rating decision to be appealed. The June 2025 VA Form 10182 does not indicate any other rating decision or issues other than entitlement to service connection with which the Veteran disagrees. Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection is the only issue on appeal regarding the Veteran's bladder tumor disability. Although service connection has already been granted, because this claim was pending prior to the effective date of the grant of service connection, the issue remains on appeal, as if service connection could be granted in the context of this appeal, an earlier to the present appeal, the June 2025 VA Form 10182 expressly identifies the specific issue to be appealed as entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor and August 2024 as the date of the rating decision to be appealed. The June 2025 VA Form 10182 does not indicate any other rating decision or issues other than entitlement to service connection with which the Veteran disagrees. Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection is the only issue on appeal regarding the Veteran's bladder tumor disability. Although service connection has already been granted, because this claim was pending prior to the effective date of the grant of service connection, the issue remains on appeal, as if service connection could be granted in the context of this appeal, an earlier effective date would be warranted. New and Relevant Evidence VA regulations, applicable to AMA adjudications, provide that if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to a supplemental claim, the AOJ will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the agency of original jurisdiction will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim. In determining whether new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, VA will consider any VA treatment records reasonably identified by the claimant and any evidence received by VA after VA issued notice of a decision on the claim and while the evidentiary record was closed. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 (effective February 19, 2019). New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim. Relevant evidence includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). New and relevant evidence received before VA issues its decision on a supplemental claim will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 (a)(2). The evidentiary record for a supplemental claim includes all evidence received by VA before VA issues notice of a decision on the supplemental claim. For VA to readjudicate the claim, the evidentiary record must include new and relevant evidence that was not of record as of the date of notice of the prior decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 (b). Upon receipt of a substantially complete supplemental claim, VA's duty to assist in the gathering of evidence is triggered and includes any such assistance that may help secure new and relevant evidence to complete the supplemental claim application. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 (c). In adjudicating such claims, reasonable doubt that exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence concerning any point will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Issues 1 and 2. New and relevant evidence having been received, readjudication of the previous denial for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems is warranted. 3. New and relevant evidence having not been received, readjudication of the previous denial for service connection for a bladder tumor is not warranted. The Veteran contends that he has submitted new and relevant evidence sufficient to warrant readjudication of his claims for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, pulmonary problems, and a bladder tumor. In August 2024, the AOJ denied the Veteran's June 2024 supplemental claim stating, "evidence submitted is not new and relevant," finding that evidence was either not new because it was previously submitted and considered in the prior rating decision(s), or that the evidence was not relevant because it does not prove or disprove a matter at issue within the Veteran's claims. The Board concludes that new and relevant evidence was submitted as to the Veteran's claims for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems and readjudication of those claims is warranted. However, the Board concludes that new and relevant evidence was not submitted as to the claim for a bladder tumor and readjudication is not warranted. By way of history, the Veteran's initial claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied in a January 2006 rating decision which the Veteran did not appeal and became final in January 2007. The Veteran next pursued his claims for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, pulmonary problems, and a bladder tumor from June 2015 through December 2018; however, he abandoned the claims for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems by not appealing or requesting administrative review within one year of a December 2018 rating decision. The December of those claims is warranted. However, the Board concludes that new and relevant evidence was not submitted as to the claim for a bladder tumor and readjudication is not warranted. By way of history, the Veteran's initial claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied in a January 2006 rating decision which the Veteran did not appeal and became final in January 2007. The Veteran next pursued his claims for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, pulmonary problems, and a bladder tumor from June 2015 through December 2018; however, he abandoned the claims for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems by not appealing or requesting administrative review within one year of a December 2018 rating decision. The December 2018 denial is the most recent prior decision which denied the claims as to bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems prior to the August 2024 rating decision currently on appeal. As explained below, the Veteran continued to pursue his claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor separately from December 2018 through October 2023. The December 2018 rating decision explained that the Veteran's claim for bilateral hearing loss was denied on direct and presumptive bases because the evidence did not establish a link between his current bilateral hearing loss disability and the evidence did not show that disabling hearing loss manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. Accordingly, as to the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss claim, the question for the Board is whether evidence was added to the claims file after the December 2018 rating decision that addresses whether there is a link between the current hearing loss and conceded noise exposure during service, and/or whether the Veteran experienced hearing loss that manifest to compensable degree within one year of service. The December 2018 rating decision also explained that the Veteran's claim for pulmonary problems was denied because although the medical evidence shows a diagnosis of COPD and VA conceded exposure to asbestos, the evidence did not establish a link between the Veteran's lung condition and his military service. Accordingly, as to the Veteran's pulmonary problems claim, the question for the Board is whether evidence was added to the claims file after the December 2018 rating decision that addresses whether there is a link between the Veteran's current diagnosis and his military service. Following the December 2018 rating decision, the Veteran continued to pursue his claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor by filing supplemental claims in August 2019, December 2021, December 2022, and June 2024; and a request for higher level review in December 2019. The AOJ issued rating decisions denying entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor in September 2019, February 2020, September 2020, January 2022, and October 2023. In addition, the Veteran submitted timely appeals to the Board following the February 2020, September 2020, and January 2022 rating decisions. In a July 2020 decision, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for further development; but then denied the Veteran's claim in March 2021 and June 2022 Board decisions. Prior to the August 2024 rating decision on appeal, the October 2023 AOJ supplemental decision is the most recent prior denial of the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor. Rating decisions and Board decisions prior to the August 2024 decision currently on appeal considered all evidence of record regarding whether the Veteran's bladder tumor disability was directly related to military service, to include as due to in-service exposure to chemicals, solvents, cleaners, fuels, asbestos, Camp Lejeune Contaminated Water (CLCW), and/or herbicide agents (Agent Orange). The prior decisions explained that the evidence failed to establish a link between the Veteran's current bladder tumor disability and his military service, to include any of the claimed in-service events, injuries, illnesses, and/or exposures. The decisions also explained that the claim was denied on a presumptive basis because the Veteran's service records do not show that his service meets the requirements for presumptive exposure to Agent Orange or that he served within the borders of the entirety of the United States Marine Corps Camp Lejeune during the affected period of contamination. Accordingly, the question for the Board as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor is whether evidence was added to the claims file after the October 2023 rating decision that addresses whether there is a link between the current bladder tumor disability and conceded exposures to asbestos, chemicals, solvents, and toxins, and/or whether the Veteran served in a location and during an affected period of presumptive exposure to Agent Orange and/or CLCW. As part of this appeal, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge on December 16, 2025. The Veteran testified that he experienced hearing loss during his active service due to military noise trauma, that Marine Corps Camp Lejeune during the affected period of contamination. Accordingly, the question for the Board as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor is whether evidence was added to the claims file after the October 2023 rating decision that addresses whether there is a link between the current bladder tumor disability and conceded exposures to asbestos, chemicals, solvents, and toxins, and/or whether the Veteran served in a location and during an affected period of presumptive exposure to Agent Orange and/or CLCW. As part of this appeal, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge on December 16, 2025. The Veteran testified that he experienced hearing loss during his active service due to military noise trauma, that his mother immediately noticed his diminished hearing within one year of separating from active service, and that he did not remember ever receiving an audiological evaluation at separation but did remember that his separation examination was not thorough. The Veteran also testified that he was exposed to high levels of asbestos, chemicals, solvents, and other toxins during his service which he asserts led to his current pulmonary problems and were not considered by a VA examiner. As indicated above, the Veteran did not testify to or otherwise mention his claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor. Regarding new evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran's December 2025 hearing testimony is new evidence that was not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Therefore, the Board will consider whether the testimony is also relevant to the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, pulmonary problems, and a bladder tumor. Regarding whether the Veteran's testimony is relevant to entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, as indicated above, relevant evidence is evidence that addresses whether there is a link between his current hearing loss disability and conceded noise exposure during service, and/or whether the Veteran experienced hearing loss that manifest to compensable degree within one year of service. Here, the Veteran's hearing testimony is new evidence because not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators and it is relevant evidence because it addresses whether the Veteran's hearing loss began during or within one year of service with progressively worsening symptoms. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran's testimony is new and relevant evidence as to his bilateral hearing loss disability and readjudication is warranted. Regarding whether the Veteran's testimony is relevant to service connection for pulmonary disability, relevant evidence is evidence that addresses whether there is a link between the Veteran's current pulmonary problems and his military service. Here, the Veteran testified as to specific chemicals, solvents, fumes, fuels, exposures, and methods of exposures that he asserts caused and/or contributed to his current pulmonary problems. Moreover, the VA made favorable findings in a July 2025 Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) memorandum in that in addition to asbestos, the VA conceded the Veteran was exposed to fuels, industrial solvents, and exhaust fumes during his active service. Although the December 2018 decision conceded exposure to asbestos, it did not consider or address evidence of exposure to fuels, industrial solvents, and exhaust fumes as well as the conceded asbestos. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran's testimony and July 2025 TERA memorandum were not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators and they are relevant evidence to the issue of whether there is a link between the Veteran's current claimed pulmonary disability and his military service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran's testimony and the July 2025 TERA memorandum are new and relevant evidence as to his pulmonary problems disability and readjudication is warranted. Regarding whether the Veteran's testimony is relevant to his claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor, the Board finds that the Board hearing testimony is not relevant as to this issue because the Veteran's testimony is totally silent for any mention of his bladder tumor disability. The testimony did not indicate or otherwise raise any issue regarding his bladder tumor and did not identify any other evidence related to his bladder tumor. Accordingly, the Board finds that although the Veteran's testimony is new evidence, it is not relevant to whether there is any link between the Veteran's bladder tumor and his military service. The Board also considered whether there is any other evidence that was added to the claims file after the most recent prior decision that is new and relevant to the issue of service connection for the Veteran's bladder disability. The Veteran did not submit any evidence after the October 2023 rating decision that is also within a reviewable evidence window which the Board may consider. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence was not received within an applicable evidence window following the most recent prior denial in October 2023 and readjudication of the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor is not warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service The Board also considered whether there is any other evidence that was added to the claims file after the most recent prior decision that is new and relevant to the issue of service connection for the Veteran's bladder disability. The Veteran did not submit any evidence after the October 2023 rating decision that is also within a reviewable evidence window which the Board may consider. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence was not received within an applicable evidence window following the most recent prior denial in October 2023 and readjudication of the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder tumor is not warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for pulmonary problems is remanded. The Board finds new and relevant evidence has been received as to the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems and remand is warranted on the merits for correction of an AOJ error in satisfying a statutory or regulatory duty per 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). As discussed above, the Board has found that new and relevant evidence has been received to warrant readjudicating the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and pulmonary problems. To avoid potential prejudice to the Veteran, remand is found necessary for the AOJ to readjudicate the Veteran's claims in the first instance. See Hickson v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 394 (2010). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Readjudicate the claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss on the merits. 2. Readjudicate the claim for entitlement to service connection for pulmonary problems on the merits. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Webb, Katherine S. 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.