Back to BVA DecisionsMIXEDService Branch AIR FORCE Special Benefit NO SPECIAL BENEFIT Docket No. 260210-640558
HEARING LOSS
JOHN Z. JONES · 2026 · Case ID: A26037713
Summary
The Veteran, an Air Force Veteran who served from March 1967 to January 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, and bilateral lower peripheral neuropathy (BLPN), all claimed to be due to trichloroethylene (TCE) exposure. The Veteran also appeals the rating for bilateral hearing loss (BHL). The Board granted service connection for left ear hearing loss, finding it related to service, and awarded a 10 percent rating based on the Veteran's private audiogram which showed level IV hearing loss bilaterally. For the other claimed conditions, the Board acknowledged the Veteran's present diagnoses and found the Veteran's testimony regarding TCE exposure credible, supported by his service in electronics and use of cleaning solvents. However, the Board denied service connection for prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, and BLPN due to a lack of competent medical evidence linking these conditions to TCE exposure, noting that the TERA memorandum did not specifically address TCE outside of Camp Lejeune water contamination and that post-decision research summaries were insufficient to establish a nexus. The Board also noted that while the AOJ did not commit a predecisional duty to assist error, the Veteran could pursue these claims via a Supplemental Claim.
Rationale
Service connection for left ear hearing loss granted.; Met all three elements: present disability, in-service exposure, and causal relationship.; VA opinion and private audiogram supported service connection.; Doubt resolved in Veteran's favor.
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26037713 Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26 DOCKET NO. 260210-640558 DATE: April 22, 2026 ORDER Service connection for left ear hearing loss is granted. Service connection for prostate cancer is denied. Service connection for bilateral lower peripheral neuropathy (BLPN) is denied. Service connection for Parkinson's disease is denied. A 10 percent rating for bilateral hearing loss (BHL) (previously claimed as right ear hearing loss), but no higher, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has left ear hearing loss related to service. 2. The available evidence does not show that the Veteran's prostate cancer is related to his trichloroethylene (TCE) exposure. 3. The available evidence does not show that the Veteran's Parkinson's disease is related to his TCE exposure 4. The available evidence does not show that the Veteran's BLPN is related to his TCE exposure. 5. The Veteran has level IV hearing loss in both ears. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for left ear hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for service connection for Parkinson's disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 4. The criteria for service connection for BLPN have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 5. The criteria for a 10 percent rating for BHL have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran honorably served in the U.S. Air Force from March 1967 to January 1971. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2025 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In the February 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 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 service connection for prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, and bilateral lower neuropathy, 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 the window to submit evidence has not yet passed. 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 service connection for prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, and bilateral lower neuropathy, 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 the window to submit evidence has not yet passed. However, the Board interprets the Veteran's March 24, 2026, submission as having waived the remaining time, and will proceed to issue this decision. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in, cause by, or aggravated by service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish service connection or service-connected aggravation for a present disability, the 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1166, 1167 (2004). Left Ear Hearing Loss 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. Regarding the first element of service connection, the Veteran attended a VA examination for their hearing loss claim in April 2025 where the examiner found they could not test the Veteran's left ear because the findings were not consistent with left ear hearing loss. In March 2026, the Veteran submitted a private hearing test. The audiometric findings were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 LEFT 45 50 55 60 70 Speech recognition was 92% in the left ear. The audiometric test of record does shows results qualifying as a disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, by Puretone threshold. In this regard, the first element of service connection is met. Regarding the second element of service connection, the rating decision on appeal, in awarding service connection for right ear hearing loss, found the Veteran was exposed to hazardous levels of noise in service. This is a favorable finding that is binding on the Board. The second element for left ear hearing loss is met. Regarding the third element, in April 2025, the Veteran attended a VA examination for his hearing loss claim. Regarding the right ear, the examiner, an audiologist, found that the Veteran had normal hearing when enlisting in service, reported in-service hearing loss, and had a moderate probability of hazardous noise exposure. The Veteran's service treatment records do not contain a hearing examination at discharge and, without evidence to the contrary, his hearing loss was found to be due to acoustic trauma during military service. Though written initially for the right ear, the Board finds this opinion also applies to the left ear. Both ears have identical medical histories and exposure levels, and the opinion is written broadly, applying to hearing loss, in general. Therefore, the persuasive weight of the evidence, and resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, is in favor of finding the third element of service connection is met. Having met all three criteria for service connection, the claim for left ear hearing loss is granted. Prostate Cancer Bilateral Peripheral Neuropathy Parkinson's Disease The Veteran contends all three disabilities are related to in-service exposure to TCE. Due to the nature of the claims, they will be considered jointly. Preliminarily, the AOJ found the Veteran has present diagnoses for all three disabilities in the April 2025 rating decision. These are favorable findings which are binding on the Board and, therefore, satisfy the first element of service connection for all three claims. Regarding the second element, the Veteran contends he was exposed to T is in favor of finding the third element of service connection is met. Having met all three criteria for service connection, the claim for left ear hearing loss is granted. Prostate Cancer Bilateral Peripheral Neuropathy Parkinson's Disease The Veteran contends all three disabilities are related to in-service exposure to TCE. Due to the nature of the claims, they will be considered jointly. Preliminarily, the AOJ found the Veteran has present diagnoses for all three disabilities in the April 2025 rating decision. These are favorable findings which are binding on the Board and, therefore, satisfy the first element of service connection for all three claims. Regarding the second element, the Veteran contends he was exposed to TCE, a toxic chemical, during his military service. A review of the Veteran's in-service treatment records revealed they are silent to any reports of the claimed disabilities or their associated symptoms, and no reference to TCE was made. The AOJ conducted a review of the Veteran's file and, in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) memorandum, found he did not participate in a TERA, including TCE exposure. Of note, TCE was not expressly addressed outside Camp Lejeune water contamination, which is not applicable to these claims. After the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran submitted a written statement regarding the nature of his service. In the document, he states that in 1967, he attended an electronics school in the U.S. Air Force. After completing his training, he was responsible for working on and around radar systems, computer mainframes, associated equipment, and in electronic equipment storage and maintenance areas. During his service, he used chlorinated solvents, including TCE, to clean electronic components, circuit boards, connectors, and mechanical parts, through various application processes. He used these chemicals as part of his regular duties without protective equipment. The Veteran is found to be a competent and credible reporter of his experiences and observations during military service, and the chemical use mentioned is consistent with the nature of his service. The TERA memorandum and service records are also assigned persuasive weight because they are primary sources. Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds he was exposed to chlorinated solvents, to include TCE, in service. Regarding the third element, the record does not contain competent medical evidence regarding whether the Veteran's diagnosed disabilities are related to TCE exposure, and no presumptive service connection regulation or statute applies. As such, the third element of service connection is not met, and the claims must be denied. After the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran submitted research summaries from artificial intelligence sources. While the information provided may be helpful in future determinations and direct experts to possible research sources, the tool is not sufficient to establish a medical nexus. A medical nexus opinion must be provided by a trained medical professional. See Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134, 137-38 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, as part of the duty to assist a Veteran in developing their claim, the VA will generally provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion based upon a review of the evidence of record if the VA determines it is necessary to decide the claim. A medical examination or medical opinion is necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). However, the Board may only remand a claim under the Modernized Review System, also known as the AMA, when there is a predecisional duty to assist error. 38 C.F.R § 20.802(a). This error occurs when the error occurred prior to the date of the AOJ's decision on appeal. Id. Here, though the record does not contain sufficient evidence to decide the claim, the AOJ did not commit a predecisional duty to assist error because the evidence triggering the VA's duty to assist by providing a medical examination was submitted after the rating decision on appeal. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Therefore, current statutes and VA regulations do not permit the Board to remand these claims for a medical opinion. The Board notes for the Veteran that, though statute and VA regulations prevent the Board from remanding the claims for additional development, he may continue to pursue them by filing a supplemental claim with particular mention of this decision. This will allow the AOJ to consider the Board's favorable findings and the evidence he submitted after the rating decision on appeal. Instructions on how to do so are included with this to assist error because the evidence triggering the VA's duty to assist by providing a medical examination was submitted after the rating decision on appeal. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Therefore, current statutes and VA regulations do not permit the Board to remand these claims for a medical opinion. The Board notes for the Veteran that, though statute and VA regulations prevent the Board from remanding the claims for additional development, he may continue to pursue them by filing a supplemental claim with particular mention of this decision. This will allow the AOJ to consider the Board's favorable findings and the evidence he submitted after the rating decision on appeal. Instructions on how to do so are included with this decision. Increased Rating Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings, which is based on average impairment of earning capacity caused by the given disability. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. When a question arises as to which of two ratings applies under a particular diagnostic code, the higher rating is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining, including degree of disability, is to be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (2021). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). BHL This appeal was submitted to the Board as disagreement with the rating assigned for right ear hearing loss. However, because the Veteran is also service connected for left ear hearing loss, the appeal is appropriately reclassified as appealing the rating for bilateral hearing loss. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Evaluations of defective hearing range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of a controlled Maryland CNC speech discrimination test together with the average hearing threshold level measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 cycles per second (Hertz). 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, DC 6100. To evaluate the degree of disability from bilateral service-connected hearing loss, the schedule establishes 11 auditory hearing acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal hearing acuity through Level XI for profound deafness. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI and VII. Testing results are applied to Table VI which determines the level of hearing impairment. The assigned levels are then applied to Table VII to determine the level of compensation. An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment occurs when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). In that situation, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral. Further, when the average pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral, and that numeral will then be elevated to the next higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b). In April 2025, the Veteran attended a VA examination for his hearing loss. An audiogram was conducted with the following results (CNT standard for "could not test"): Hertz CNC 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg % RIGHT 30 35 35 35 33.75 76 LEFT CNT CNT CNT CNT N/A 96 Applying the above results to Table VI, the Veteran's right ear has level III hearing loss. A level cannot be applied to the left ear. In March 2026, the Veteran provided a private audiogram. The results were as follows: Hertz CNC 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg % RIGHT 55 60 60 70 the following results (CNT standard for "could not test"): Hertz CNC 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg % RIGHT 30 35 35 35 33.75 76 LEFT CNT CNT CNT CNT N/A 96 Applying the above results to Table VI, the Veteran's right ear has level III hearing loss. A level cannot be applied to the left ear. In March 2026, the Veteran provided a private audiogram. The results were as follows: Hertz CNC 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg % RIGHT 55 60 60 70 61.25 100 LEFT 55 60 60 70 61.25 92 Applying the above results to Table VI, the Veteran's hearing bilaterally meets the criteria for level II hearing loss. Further, because all four measurements bilaterally are 55 dBs or above, both ears meet the criteria for exception patterns of hearing loss. Applying the results to Table VIa, both ears meet the criteria for level IV hearing loss. Applying the greatest level of disability, level IV hearing loss bilaterally, to table VII, the Veteran's hearing is assigned a 10 percent rating. Therefore, a 10 percent rating, but no higher, is granted. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Guarnieri 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.