HEARING LOSS

FREDERIC P. GALLUN · 2026 · Case ID: A26037739

DENIED

Summary

The veteran served from March 1999 to May 2001. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2025 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision that denied claims for bilateral hearing loss, bilateral otitis media, tinnitus, and migraines. The veteran elected the Direct Review docket, limiting the Board's review to evidence of record at the time of the RO decision. The veteran claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were due to in-service noise exposure from working on jet engines without proper personal protective equipment. The RO conceded in-service noise exposure and current diagnoses for these conditions. However, the March 2025 audiological evaluation showed the veteran's hearing did not meet VA criteria for disability, and the VA examiner opined the tinnitus was less likely than not related to service, noting the veteran's description was inconsistent with noise-induced tinnitus and that the veteran failed to report tinnitus for 20 years post-service. For bilateral otitis media, the RO conceded noise exposure and a current diagnosis, but the Board found the evidence weighed against a service connection, noting only acute treatment in service and a 2023 onset date from the VA examiner. For migraines, the veteran claimed they were due to noise exposure, but the VA examiner concluded they were less likely than not related to service, noting the veteran reported onset in 2025 and no complaints during service. The Board denied all claims, finding the evidence persuasively weighed against service connection for each condition and that the benefit of the doubt doctrine was not applicable.

Rationale

March 2025 audiological evaluation did not meet VA criteria for disability; No competent medical evidence to the contrary; Evidence persuasively weighs against the claim

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

260109-633088

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037739
Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26

DOCKET NO. 260109-633088
DATE: April 22, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

Service connection for bilateral otitis media is denied.

Service connection for tinnitus is denied.

Service connection for migraines is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The medical evidence of record does not show the Veteran has a hearing loss disability for VA purposes.

2. The Veteran's bilateral otitis media did not have its onset during service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within the first year post-service; and is not otherwise related to any in-service injury or disease.

3. The Veteran's tinnitus did not have its onset during service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within the first year post-service; and is not otherwise related to disease or injury in service.

4. The Veteran's migraine disability did not have its onset during service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within the first year post-service; and is not otherwise related to any in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385.

2. The criteria for service connection for bilateral otitis media are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not 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 migraines are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1999 to May 2001. The Board recognizes the Veteran's service to our country, and the sacrifices it necessarily entailed.

This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2025 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In that rating decision, the RO denied claims for left ear hearing loss, right ear hearing loss, left ear otitis media, right ear otitis media, migraines, and tinnitus.

In the February 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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 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

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for establishing service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury in service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain chronic diseases (to include sensorineural hearing loss as an organic
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for establishing service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury in service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain chronic diseases (to include sensorineural hearing loss as an organic disease of the nervous system) will be presumed to be service-connected if shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

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

Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Bilateral Hearing Loss

The Veteran asserts his current bilateral hearing loss is the result of in-service noise exposure. Specifically, he asserts his current hearing loss is the result of "Working on jet engines without proper PPE protection." See Veterans Application for Compensation or Pension, received December 19, 2024.

Impaired hearing is defined as a disability under VA law 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. The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels; higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. See Hensley v. Brown,?5?Vet. App.?155, 157?(1993). Thus, while a lay person is capable of noticing a decrease in hearing acuity, the precise degree of hearing acuity is measured by objective audiometric testing and is not capable of lay observation.

In the March 2025 rating decision, the RO conceded in-service hazardous noise exposure. See Rating Decision, March 28, 2025. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104. At issue in this case is whether the Veteran has a diagnosis for hearing loss for VA purposes.

On the authorized audiological evaluation in March 2025, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 15 15 30 25 15

LEFT 15 20 35 25 25

Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in the right ear and of 100 percent in the left ear. See C&P Exam, received March 26, 2025.

The average pure tone threshold at 1000 through 4000 Hertz is 21 for the right ear and 29 for the left ear. The VA examiner diagnosed sensorineural hearing loss in both ears. However, based on the March 2025 testing, the Veteran's hearing does not meet the criteria for a disability for VA purposes under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

There is no auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 H
recognition ability of 100 percent in the right ear and of 100 percent in the left ear. See C&P Exam, received March 26, 2025.

There is no auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz at 40 decibels or greater, no auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz at 26 decibels or greater, and the Veteran's speech recognition score using the Maryland CNC Test was not less than 94 percent.? 38?C.F.R. §?3.385. Accordingly, the March 2025 findings do not show a hearing loss disability for VA purposes pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. See Hensley,?5?Vet. App.?155, 157?(1993).

Importantly, there is no competent medical evidence to the contrary. VA requires audiological findings from a state-licensed audiologist. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a).

In sum, the Veteran does not have a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes at any time covered by this claim. In reaching this conclusion, the evidence is not in approximate balance or relative equipoise, and therefore the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side, or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

Bilateral Otitis Media

The Veteran asserts his current bilateral otitis media is the result of in-service noise exposure. Specifically, he asserts his current bilateral otitis media is the result of "Working on jet engines without proper PPE protection." See Veterans Application for Compensation or Pension, received December 19, 2024.

A current diagnosis and in-service exposure are not at issue. In the March 2025 rating decision on appeal, the RO conceded noise exposure based on the Veteran's military occupation and confirmed the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral otitis media (ear infections). See Rating Decision, March 28, 2025. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104. Therefore, the remaining question before the Board is whether the Veteran's bilateral otitis media is related to disease or injury in service, including conceded in-service noise exposure.

While the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral otitis media and the evidence shows that he had in-service noise exposure, the most probative evidence of record weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of bilateral otitis media began during service, manifested to a compensable degree within the first year post-service; or, otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d), 3.385.

The Veteran's service treatment records show treatment for ear pain in 1999. None of the records from over two decades ago suggest that the Veteran's ear pain is chronic or requires long-term care. See STR - Medical, June 22, 2001.

During an in-person examination in 2025, and based on a review of the medical evidence, a VA examiner dated the onset of the bilateral otitis media as 2023. There is nothing in the medical records to suggest that the Veteran has been receiving care for his ear infections for over two decades, thereby undercutting any continuity of symptoms argument. See C&P Exam, March 18, 2025.

Additionally, the VA examiner concluded the Veteran's bilateral otitis media was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness and provided the following rationale,

After review of the Veterans [service treatment records] while
STR - Medical, June 22, 2001.

After review of the Veterans [service treatment records] while in military service it is noted that the Veteran had several complaints of upper respiratory disorders including pharyngitis. There was a complaint of Acute Otitis Media in 1999 and he was treated with an abx [antibiotics]. The Veteran also had complaints of right ear pain and left ear pain throughout 1999 and 2000. However, the records were silent of any continued complaints. These episodes were acute in nature and treated with medication with resolution. There was no evidence to indicate that this is a chronic condition. Id.

As the most probative evidence of record weighs against finding that the Veteran's bilateral otitis media is as likely as not the result of in-service injury or disease, service connection for bilateral otitis media is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

In reaching this conclusion, the evidence is not in approximate balance or relative equipoise, and therefore the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side, or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

Tinnitus

The Veteran asserts his current tinnitus is the result of in-service noise exposure. Specifically, he asserts his current tinnitus is the result of "Working on jet engines without proper PPE protection." See Fully Developed Claim, received December 19, 2024.

A current diagnosis and in-service exposure are not at issue. In the March 2025 rating decision on appeal, the RO conceded noise exposure based on the Veteran's military occupation and confirmed the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. See Rating Decision, March 28, 2025. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104. Therefore, the remaining question before the Board is whether the Veteran's tinnitus is related to disease or injury in service, including conceded in-service noise exposure.

While the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus; and the evidence shows that he had in-service noise exposure, the most probative evidence of record weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of tinnitus began during service, manifested to a compensable degree within the first post-service year; or, otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d), 3.385.

During the March 2025 VA audiological examination, the Veteran asserts his tinnitus had its onset in 1992 seven years prior to active duty. See C&P Exam, received March 26, 2025. The VA examiner found,

Though the Veteran reports recurrent ringing, he does not have a diagnosis of tinnitus due to auditory pathology. His description of tinnitus is inconsistent with noise-induced tinnitus patterns. He describes tinnitus in one ear at a time that comes on suddenly then tapers off after a short duration no longer than 20 seconds. He denies tinnitus as defined in the Dauman and Tyler (1992) statement cited in the Tinnitus Handbook (Tyler); this transient ear noise is not tinnitus as defined in the VA Handbook of Progressive Tinnitus Management and TMS Learning Modules. Id.

The VA examiner concluded it is less likely than not the Veteran's tinnitus episodes are caused by or a result of military noise exposure and provided the following rationale,

The Veteran's description of transient ear noise is suggestive of normal changes in vascular flow; this type of tinnitus is prevalent among the general population without auditory damage or pathology. This transient ear noise
ear at a time that comes on suddenly then tapers off after a short duration no longer than 20 seconds. He denies tinnitus as defined in the Dauman and Tyler (1992) statement cited in the Tinnitus Handbook (Tyler); this transient ear noise is not tinnitus as defined in the VA Handbook of Progressive Tinnitus Management and TMS Learning Modules. Id.

The VA examiner concluded it is less likely than not the Veteran's tinnitus episodes are caused by or a result of military noise exposure and provided the following rationale,

The March 2025 VA examiner's opinion is supported by an adequate rationale based upon review of the Veteran's medical history and lay statements. The audiologist specifically addressed the Veteran's in-service noise exposure. The audiologist also reviewed the Veteran's VA medical records, in which the Veteran failed to report any tinnitus for 20 years post-service. Furthermore, the examiner is an audiologist who possesses the necessary education, training, and expertise to provide the requested opinion.

Accordingly, the March 2025 opinion is afforded significant probative value. There is no other competent medical evidence to contradict this opinion or otherwise diminish its probative weight. The Board finds the Veteran does not suffer from tinnitus. As such, and given that there is no objective evidence of onset of symptoms of tinnitus within one year of separation from service, no further consideration of whether the Veteran's tinnitus disability manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service is warranted.

The Veteran's lay statements have been considered. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and persistent nature of his tinnitus symptoms. See Barr v. Nicholson,?21?Vet. App.?303?(2007) (lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology that is not medical in nature); Charles v. Principi,?16?Vet. App.?370, 374-75?(2002) (holding that particularly with respect to claims for tinnitus, a veteran is competent to present evidence of a diagnosis and continuous symptoms). In other words, the Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuity of ringing in the ears, as this is a sensation that is capable of lay observation.

Although the Veteran sincerely believes that his tinnitus is related to service, his opinion in this regard is not buttressed by any objective evidence. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 454 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Lay witnesses may, in some circumstances, competently opine on questions of diagnosis and etiology (such as the onset of an observable symptom such as varicose veins, for example). See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). While the Veteran is certainly capable of reporting observable symptoms such as bursts of ringing in his ears, the Board has not found that the Veteran suffers from tinnitus. Regardless, even if the Veteran was diagnosed with tinnitus, the Board does not find a nexus between military service and the development of tinnitus over two decades later.

In conclusion, the evidence is not in approximate balance or relative equipoise. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable to this case. Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Migraines

The Veteran asserts his current migraines are the result of in-service noise exposure. Specifically, he asserts his current migraines are the result of "Working on jet engines without proper PPE protection." See Fully Developed Claim, received December 19, 2024.

Migraines

According to the March 2025 VA Headaches examination, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of migraines. See C&P Exam, March 18, 2025. During the examination, the Veteran relayed that his headaches onset in 2025. Specifically, the Veteran asserted that his headaches start when he experiences ringing in his ears. Id. The VA examiner noted the Veteran was involved in a motorcycle accident in February 2024. Id. The Veteran did not assert or suggest that he had been suffering from headaches for decades or that his headaches began in service, which one would expect if his condition was chronic.

As noted above, noise exposure has been conceded. Notwithstanding, service treatment records are absent any evidence of a chronic headache disorder diagnosis or treatment. See STR - Medical, June 22, 2001.

With respect to a nexus, the March 2025 VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's migraine headaches disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness and provided the following rationale, "After review of the Veterans medical records the Veteran had complaints of a headache in 2000 when he was diagnosed with an upper respiratory condition. Further review of the records was silent of any complaints of migraines during military service." See C&P Exam, March 18, 2025. Notably, there is no medical opinion to the contrary.

As the most probative evidence of record weighs against finding that the Veteran's migraine headaches disability is as likely as not the result of in-service injury or disease, service connection for migraines is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

(Continued on the next page)

Frederic P. Gallun

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Ardalan, Nina

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