HEARING LOSS

TIFFANY HANSON · 2026 · Case ID: A26037927

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, an Air Force veteran who served from July 2008 to June 2020, appealed the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The veteran claimed the hearing loss was due to active duty service. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) reviewed the evidence, including private treatment records and a VA hearing loss examination from August 2021. The private records indicated occasional hearing difficulty, but the VA examination found normal hearing in both ears with no diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. Audiometric testing showed thresholds within normal limits and speech recognition ability of 98% in the right ear and 94% in the left. The Board found the VA examination persuasive and gave it great weight, concluding that the veteran did not have a current hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulations. While acknowledging the veteran's lay statements about hearing difficulty, the Board found them less probative than the objective medical evidence. The Board also noted that the veteran was competent to report diminished hearing but not to diagnose the condition or interpret audiometric results. As the evidence persuasively weighed against the claim and the veteran did not meet the criteria for a current disability, service connection was denied. The Board also noted that the benefit of the doubt doctrine did not apply as the evidence was not in equipoise.

Rationale

No current disability found; VA examination persuasive and given great weight; Lay statements less probative than medical evidence

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

211103-195309

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037927
Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26

DOCKET NO. 211103-195309
DATE: April 22, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is DENIED.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria to establish service connection for hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from July 2008 to June 2020.

In July 2021, the Veteran filed a disability claim seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In September 2021, the VA Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision denying service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

In August 2024, the Veteran filed an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) via a VA Form 10182. The Veteran elected the hearing docket. An August 2025 notification advised the Veteran that a hearing was scheduled on November 6, 2025. The Veteran did not appear for the scheduled Board hearing.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2020 rating decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran within 90 days following the date of the scheduled hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(c). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the RO issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review and prior to the date of the scheduled Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the date of the scheduled hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(c), 20.801.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this Decision, there is no requirement that every piece of evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. Gonzales v. West,?218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81?(Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober,?14 Vet. App. 122, 128-130?(2000).

Service Connection

Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

The three-element test for direct service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Lay statements may serve to support a claim for service connection by supporting the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1153(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d. 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, some medical issues fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011).

VA regulations do not preclude service connection for hearing loss that first met VA's definition of a disability after service, provided the evidence of record shows the required nexus with active service.
38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d. 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, some medical issues fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011).

Service connection can also be established on a presumptive basis in cases where a veteran served continuously for 90 days or more during active service and certain chronic diseases that become manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date on which the veteran separated from service, even if there is no evidence of the chronic disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

The term "chronic disease" refers to those diseases listed under section 1101(3) of the station and section 3.309(a) of VA regulations. 38 U.S.C. § 1101(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For such diseases, the second and third elements of service connection may be established by demonstrating (1) that a condition was "noted" during service; (2) post-service continuity of symptoms; and (3) medical, or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a link between the present disability and the continuity of symptoms. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Walker, 708 at 1338.

If a chronic condition is noted during service or during the presumptive period, but the chronic condition is not "shown to be chronic, or where the diagnosis of the chronicity may be legitimately questioned," i.e., "when the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported," then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after discharge is required to support a claim for disability compensation for the chronic disease. Proven continuity of symptomatology establishes the link, or nexus, between the current disease and serves as the evidentiary tool to confirm the existence of the chronic disease while in service or a presumptive period during which existence in service is presumed. Walker at 1336; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a claimant prevailing in either event. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an "approximate" (meaning nearly equal) balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material determination. Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391 (2021); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). If the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, the claim is denied.

Analysis - Bilateral Hearing Loss

The Veteran contends that his hearing loss is due to his active-duty service. See November 2021, VA Form 10182.

Turning to the elements of service connection, to meet the current disability element of service connection, there must be a currently diagnosed disorder during the period on appeal. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992).

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current hearing loss disability and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

For the purposes of applying the laws administered
there must be a currently diagnosed disorder during the period on appeal. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992).

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 (Hz) is 40 decibels (dB) or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hz are 26 dB 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 zero to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 160 (1993).

The Veteran submitted private treatment records for review. In March 2020, the Veteran reported "he has occasional hearing difficulty where he has to ask people to repeat spoken words and needs to turn up his music louder than usual to hear it." See July 2021, Medical Treatment Record.

In August 2021, the Veteran was seen for a VA hearing loss examination. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had normal hearing in both ears and no diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss was rendered. On the authorized audiological evaluation, pure tone thresholds for the right and left ear, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 20 10 15 5 10

LEFT 20 15 10 5 10

Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 98 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear.

The Board finds the August 2021 VA examiner's examination persuasive and gives it great weight. The VA examiner provided a detailed examination that was based on an accurate medical history, lay statements, and audiometric testing results that provided an explanation that contained clear conclusions and supporting data. Id.

After consideration of the VA examination, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record persuasively reflects that the Veteran does not have a hearing loss disability as defined by regulation at any time during the current appeal. Thus, the first element of service connection has not been met.

The Board has considered the Veteran's lay opinion that he has hearing loss. Lay witnesses are competent to provide testimony or statements relating to symptoms or facts of events that the lay witness observed as is within the realm of his or her personal knowledge, but not competent to establish that which would require specialized knowledge or training, such as medical expertise. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994).

The Veteran is competent and credible to report diminished hearing, however he is not competent to report specific results of audiometric and word recognition testing, as required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, nor is the Veteran competent to diagnose himself with a hearing loss disability. The record does not indicate he received any special training or acquired medical expertise in evaluating hearing disorders. King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, the Board finds the medical evidence of record, including audiometric and speech recognition testing, is of greater probative value than the Veteran's lay statements.

The Board does not question the Veteran's sincerity in his belief that service connection is warranted for hearing loss. However, the Board finds the medical evidence of record, specifically the August 2021 VA examination and opinion, to be of higher probative value because the opinion is supported by objective findings during examination.

In reaching the above conclusions, the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). However, as the most probative evidence of record is persuasively against the claim (in other words, the evidence for and against the claims is not approximately in equipoise), the Board finds that the doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Lynch, supra. In the absence of a diagnosis of hearing loss disability, the other elements of service connection need not be discussed, and service connection must be denied.

TIFFANY HANSON

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board H.E. Toole, Associate Counsel

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