HEARING LOSS

MELANIE J. MANN · 2026 · Case ID: A26038234

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps from July 1987 to July 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for left ear hearing loss and the grant of service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus. The veteran's service included combat, as evidenced by receipt of the Combat Action Ribbon and service as a rifleman, suggesting exposure to hazardous noise. For left ear hearing loss, the Board found the evidence did not persuasively demonstrate a current disability for VA purposes, as audiometric testing showed thresholds within normal limits and the private report lacked specific numerical data and confirmation of the required Maryland CNC word recognition test. The Board found the veteran's lay contentions of hearing difficulty insufficient to self-diagnose the disability. For right ear hearing loss, the Board found the initial VA examination inadequate because it focused on the absence of in-service findings rather than addressing the veteran's lay contentions or providing alternative etiologies, and it failed to adequately consider the impact of combat service and MOS. The Board found the evidence in relative equipoise and resolved doubt in the veteran's favor, granting service connection. For tinnitus, the Board found the veteran had a current diagnosis and that it was at least as likely as not associated with the service-connected right ear hearing loss, granting service connection on a secondary basis. Service connection for left ear hearing loss is denied; service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus is granted.

Rationale

No persuasive evidence of current disability for VA purposes; Audiometric thresholds within normal limits; Private report lacked required numerical data and test confirmation

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210714-172315

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038234
Decision Date: 04/23/26 Archive Date: 04/23/26

DOCKET NO. 210714-172315
DATE: April 23, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence does not persuasively demonstrate that the Veteran has left ear hearing loss for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation purposes.

2. The evidence is in relative equipoise regarding whether the Veteran's current right ear hearing loss is related to in-service noise exposure.

3. The evidence is in relative equipoise regarding whether the Veteran's current tinnitus is proximately due to his now service-connected right ear hearing loss.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.385.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.385.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from July 1987 to July 1991. His decorations include the Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, the Pistol Marksman Badge, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Meritorious Mast, the Southwest Asia Service Medal with one star, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. The Board is grateful for the Veteran's honorable service.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2021 rating decision of the VA regional office (RO) which confirmed and continued denials of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran timely filed a VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) and selected the Hearing docket.

In November 2024, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a virtual hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record.

Evidentiary Window

As the Veteran chose the Hearing docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his 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 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.

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. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.304. The three-element test for 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.3
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 also be granted for a disability which is proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Allen v. Brown, 1 Vet. App. 439 (1995). To establish secondary service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability, (2) evidence of a service-connected disability, and (3) nexus evidence establishing a connection between a service-connected disability and the current disability.

The Board is bound by favorable findings of the AOJ unless rebutted by clear and unmistakable (undebatable) evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

In determining whether service connection is warranted, the Board shall consider the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. That is, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in "approximate" balance, i.e., "nearly equal," but does not require that the evidence be in exact equipoise. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

1. Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is denied.

The Veteran maintains entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss which he asserts is related to active duty service.

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, or 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.

In this case, the record does not show that the Veteran had a left ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, at any time during the appeal period or in proximity to the claim for service connection. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Specifically, the results of audiological testing at a December 2014 VA examination revealed the following pure tone thresholds, in decibels:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

LEFT 5 10 5 15 25

Speech audiometry using the Maryland CNC word list revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in the left ear.

The Veteran also submitted a private audiological report in May 2021. This private report contained audiometric graphs without numerical values of pure tone thresholds. In these instances, the Court has found that the Board can interpret audiometric graphs. See Kelly v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 471, 474 (1995); see also Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 249 (2011) (noting the Board may interpret results from a private audiometric graph if it felt it had the expertise). The Board has interpreted the pure tone thresholds in decibels as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

LEFT 15 20 20 20 35

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

LEFT 15 20 20 20 35

Speech audiometry testing was provided and revealed speech ability of 100 percent in the left ear. However, the private evaluation does not indicate whether the audiologist used the Maryland CNC word recognition test, which is required for evaluating hearing impairment for VA purposes. The Court has held that when a private examination report "reasonably appears" to contain information necessary to properly decide a claim but is "unclear" or "not suitable for rating purposes," and the information reasonably contained in the report otherwise cannot be obtained, VA has a duty to either (1) ask the private examiner to clarify the report, (2) request that the claimant obtain the necessary information or clarify the report, or (3) explain why such clarification is not needed. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a); See Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259, 270 (2011). Here, as the Veteran's speech recognition is 100 percent, as also shown at the December 2014 VA examination, the Board does not find it necessary to clarify this portion of the report.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that he has a current left ear hearing loss disability. As a lay person, he is competent to report that he has difficulty hearing; however, he is not competent to self-diagnose a hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes as specifically defined under applicable regulations. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (2006). Diagnosing a hearing loss disability for VA purposes requires specialized audiometric testing. The Veteran has not been shown to possess the medical expertise or knowledge to diagnose a hearing loss disability. Therefore, his contentions do not constitute competent evidence of a current left ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes.

In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). As the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. Service connection for left ear hearing loss is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is granted.

The Veteran maintains entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss which he asserts is related to active duty service.

In the July 2021 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran has a current right ear hearing loss for VA compensation purposes, as shown on the December 2014 VA examination report. The AOJ also favorably found that the Veteran is in receipt of the Combat Action Ribbon. The record is devoid of any clear and unmistakable evidence that rebuts these favorable findings. In addition to being in receipt of the Combat Action Ribbon, the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) was that of a rifleman, an MOS that carries the high probability of hazardous noise exposure. Thus, the Board finds that the first and second elements of service connection have been met. At issue in this case is whether the Veteran's right ear hearing loss is etiologically related to his verified participation in combat and/or to his MOS.

To that end, the December 2014 VA examiner found that the Veteran's right ear hearing loss was not at least as likely as not caused by or the result of an event in military service. She reasoned that, while it is reasonable to assume that the Veteran was exposed to significant hazardous noise levels while in service, testing during service and at the VA examination did not demonstrate a significant change in thresholds beyond normal variability. In fact, she noted, hearing thresholds were within normal limits in both ears at the time of separation. The VA examiner then cited medical literature that addresses the unlikelihood of delay onset hearing loss following the cessation of noise exposure.

The Board finds that this medical opinion is inadequate, as it is largely predicated upon the VA examiner's finding that there was no degree of hearing loss during service. This fact is not dispositive, as the absence of evidence of auditory pathology in the Veteran's service treatment records does not preclude service connection. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993)
during service and at the VA examination did not demonstrate a significant change in thresholds beyond normal variability. In fact, she noted, hearing thresholds were within normal limits in both ears at the time of separation. The VA examiner then cited medical literature that addresses the unlikelihood of delay onset hearing loss following the cessation of noise exposure.

The Board finds that this medical opinion is inadequate, as it is largely predicated upon the VA examiner's finding that there was no degree of hearing loss during service. This fact is not dispositive, as the absence of evidence of auditory pathology in the Veteran's service treatment records does not preclude service connection. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993) (holding that 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 does not preclude service connection for a current hearing disability where hearing was within normal limits on audiometric testing at separation from service); Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992) (finding that the lack of documented hearing loss while in service is not fatal to a claim for service connection.). Further, while the December 2014 VA examiner espoused the theory that delayed onset hearing loss does not occur, she failed to address the Veteran's lay contentions or to provide any alternative etiology for the Veteran's disability.

The Board could remand this issue for an additional opinion. However, this is unnecessary because the probative evidence reveals a currently diagnosed right ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes, establishes in-service noise exposure based on the Veteran's participation in combat and his MOS, the Veteran has competently and credibly reported that his hearing problems began during service, and there is no evidence of intercurrent noise exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); cf. Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305, 312 (2003) (noting that, because it is not permissible for VA to undertake additional development to obtain evidence against an appellant's case, VA must provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision to pursue such development where such development could be reasonably construed as obtaining additional evidence for that purpose). Thus, the Board finds the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's right ear hearing loss is related to service.

For these reasons, and resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for right ear hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The claim is granted.

3. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus granted.

The Veteran maintains entitlement to service connection for tinnitus which he avers had its onset during active duty service and/or is secondary to hearing loss.

In the July 2021 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. The record is devoid of any clear and unmistakable evidence that rebuts this favorable finding. Thus, the Board finds that the first element of service connection on a secondary basis has been met.

At the December 2014 VA examination, the VA examiner found that the Veteran's bilateral tinnitus is at least as likely as not a symptom associated with hearing loss, and right ear hearing loss has been service-connected herein. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (stating that establishing secondary service connection requires evidence showing that a current disability was caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability). Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met on a secondary basis. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The claim is granted.

Melanie J. Mann

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board L. Roberts

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