HEARING LOSS

M. M. CELLI · 2026 · Case ID: A26038506

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army cannon crewmember who served from November 1983 to April 1984, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss (BHL). The Board noted that the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) and service treatment records indicated exposure to hazardous noise, including artillery fire and machine guns, with no hearing protection provided. The Veteran also reported experiencing muffled hearing and difficulty understanding speech since his military service. Several VA examinations were conducted, with conflicting opinions regarding the nexus between the BHL and service. The July 2023 VA examiner opined unfavorably, suggesting post-service railroad employment was the likely cause, but this opinion was found not credible due to speculation about the nature of the noise exposure. The September 2023 VA examiner found a favorable nexus, concluding that the Veteran's confirmed military noise exposures were at least as likely as not the cause of his BHL, affording the benefit of the doubt due to the absence of a separation examination. The December 2024 VA examiner's opinion was again found not credible due to speculation and reliance on a post-service onset date that contradicted other evidence. The Board found the evidence in relative equipoise, resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

Rationale

Board found evidence in relative equipoise; Resolved all doubt in Veteran's favor; Found confirmed military noise exposure sufficient to cause BHL

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250729-584311

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038506
Decision Date: 04/24/26 Archive Date: 04/24/26

DOCKET NO. 250729-584311
DATE: April 24, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss (BHL) is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, his BHL was caused by military noise exposure.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for BHL have been met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1131, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1983 to April 1984.

This matter comes before the?Board of Veterans' Appeals?(Board) on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office.

In the July 2025 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 April 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.

As an initial matter, the Veteran included the issues of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) and entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, headaches, and a left hip disorder in his July 2025 VA Form 10182. In October 2024, the Veteran requested Higher-Level Review of an October 2023 rating decision regarding entitlement to a TDIU. In November 2024, the AOJ issued a rating decision which informed the Veteran that a duty to assist error related to his claim had been identified. Further development was undertaken, and a rating decision denying entitlement to a TDIU was issued in February 2026.

Under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA),?concurrent election?is prohibited, meaning that once a Veteran has filed for review under one lane (i.e., higher-level review, supplemental claim, Board review), he cannot seek review under a different lane while adjudication is pending in the previously selected lane.?38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). Therefore, adjudication cannot be sought under higher-level review and through a VA Form 10182 at the same time for the same issue. Because the Veteran's TDIU claim was still pending resolution in a different AMA lane at the time he filed his July 2025 VA Form 10182, the attempt to appeal the issue of a TDIU to the Board represents a prohibited concurrent election. The Board will accordingly not review the issue of TDIU in the instant decision.

The issues of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, headaches, and a left hip disorder are appealed from a rating decision issued in August 2015. Because this rating decision predates the February 2019 enactment of the AMA, these issues are part of the Legacy system of appeals. They may not be appealed via a VA Form 10182. Additionally, while the Board sympathizes with the Veteran, the record does not reflect good cause for which the Board can grant a 9-year extension. Thus, the Board will not consider those additional issues herein.

Entitlement to service connection for BHL.

The Veteran contends that his BHL was caused by military noise exposure.

Generally, in order to prove service connection, a Veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called "nexus" requirement. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In the April 2025 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ conceded a current diagnosis of BHL based on the findings of a July 2023 VA examination. The AOJ also conceded hazardous noise exposure based on the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) of cannon crewmember. Under the AMA, the Board is bound by the AOJ's favorable findings, absent clear and unmistakable evidence to the contrary. 38?C.F.R. §?3.104(c).

While the Veteran's exposure to hazardous noise was conceded based on his MOS,
nexus" requirement. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

While the Veteran's exposure to hazardous noise was conceded based on his MOS, the Board notes that the record includes additional relevant details of noise exposure related to his duties in the military. During VA examinations and statements offered in support of his claim, the Veteran reported exposure to noise from tanks, tracked vehicles, machine guns, rifles, missiles, generators, grenades, and artillery. In a June 2023 statement, the Veteran explained that he was not provided hearing protection during these military noise exposures. During a September 2023 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his exposure to cannon fire noise occurred at point blank range, which is consistent with the duties expected of a cannon crewmember.

The remaining question for the Board is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's BHL and his service, to include the conceded noise exposure.

As an initial matter, the Veteran's post-service noise exposure was weighed by many of the VA examiners offering nexus opinions for his BHL. The facts are somewhat in dispute. During the July 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he worked as a railroad operator for 20 years. At a July 2023 VA examination, the Veteran reported noise exposure of unspecified duration and degree as a railroad operator. During a September 2023 VA examination, the Veteran denied post-service noise exposure, aside from music. At a December 2024 VA examination, the Veteran stated that he worked for a railroad for three years and was a supervisor at a trucking company for seven years.

In his June 2023 VA From 21-8940 Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, the Veteran indicated that he had worked as a supervisor from May 1994 to May 2007. He worked as an operator at a railroad from May 2009 to May 2011. The Veteran asserted that he stopped working in May 2011.

A number of questions arise from this evidence regarding post-service employment and noise exposure. The type and severity of post-service noise exposure was never specifically identified by any of the VA examiners. No comparison was made, for example, between the auditory impact of an artillery piece fired at point blank range without hearing protection and the noise of a truck or railroad engine. No inquiry was made regarding the use of hearing protection in any of the Veteran's post-service jobs. The nature of the Veteran's occupational duties as they relate to noise exposure were never identified. For instance, the record reflects that a portion of the Veteran's post-service employment was as a supervisor. A supervisor in the railroad or trucking industry may have had less noise exposure than an operator in either of those career fields.

Any failure on the part of VA examiners to obtain more specific information relevant to the Veteran's post-service noise exposure cannot be held against the Veteran. Any speculation on the part of a VA examiner regarding post-service noise exposure will not be entertained by the Board. To the extent that reasonable doubt exists regarding these and other questions related to the Veteran's post-service noise exposure, that doubt will be resolved in favor of the Veteran.

The July 2015 VA examiner was unable to provide an opinion regarding the Veteran's BHL due to audiogram results which were not valid for rating purposes.

The July 2023 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's BHL was not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event in military service. The Veteran's hearing was normal at enlistment, and there was not a separation hearing examination in his records. The Veteran served for six months as a cannon crewmember. His post-service work as a railroad operator for 20 years would have exposed him to hazardous noise. Therefore, it was less likely that the Veteran's BHL was related to military noise exposure.

The July 2023 VA examiner is competent to offer the opinion provided. However, the examiner's conclusion regarding noise exposure as a railroad operator is not well supported by the evidence, as discussed above, and enters the realm of speculation. The opinion is not credible, and the Board assigns it low probative weight.

During a September 2023 VA examination, the Veteran stated that his hearing had been muffled since he was in the military. He could hear some people and struggled to
The Veteran served for six months as a cannon crewmember. His post-service work as a railroad operator for 20 years would have exposed him to hazardous noise. Therefore, it was less likely that the Veteran's BHL was related to military noise exposure.

During a September 2023 VA examination, the Veteran stated that his hearing had been muffled since he was in the military. He could hear some people and struggled to hear others. He had to ask people to repeat themselves multiple times. The September 2023 VA examiner noted that the Veteran's MOS had a high probability for noise exposure. The Veteran's military records also established that he used rifles and hand grenades. The examiner was unable to assess an in-service threshold shift due to the lack of a separation examination. However, the examiner noted that with this absence of evidence, the Veteran's confirmed military noise exposure was at least as likely as not the cause of his BHL.

The September 2023 VA examiner is competent to provide the opinion rendered. The opinion is not particularly detailed, but it does explain that the Veteran's confirmed military noise exposures were sufficient to cause BHL. The opinion also did not improperly use an absence of service treatment records as a basis and afforded the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran. The opinion is credible, and the Board assigns it high probative value.

During a December 2024 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his BHL had its onset in 1994 due to noise exposure and had progressively worsened. The December 2024 VA examiner offered the opinion that it was not at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right ear hearing loss was caused by or a result of an event, injury, or disease incurred during military service. The examiner noted that there was no separation examination available for review. The Veteran reported the onset of hearing loss over ten years after separation and after exposure to recreational and/or occupational noise. Military noise exposure had been established, but auditory damage and hearing loss could not be conceded based on noise exposure alone.

The December 2024 VA examiner is competent to form the opinion provided. However, the examiner notably relied solely on the statement that the Veteran's BHL had its onset in 1994, despite other statements that indicated the Veteran had experienced hearing loss since service. The opinion also did not assess the evidence in the record discussed above indicating that the Veteran did not work at a railroad until after 1994. It is therefore unclear what occupational and/or recreational noise to which the examiner was referring. The opinion is not credible, and the Board assigns it low probative weight.

The December 2024 VA examiner also stated that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss, which pre-existed his service, was not aggravated by service. An April 2025 addendum opinion correctly noted that hearing loss in the Veteran's left ear at the time of his entrance did not constitute hearing loss for VA purposes. The Veteran's left ear hearing loss therefore did not clearly and unmistakably pre-date his service. The Board will not assess the credibility of this portion of the opinion.

In the April 2025 addendum opinion, the examiner noted that the Veteran's separation examination was not available in his service treatment records. The Veteran's short period of active service, combined with a lack of any auditory complaints or observed threshold shifts, reduced the likelihood of a significant noise-induced hearing loss during service. The Veteran reported the onset of his hearing loss ten years after separation. He also reported post-service occupational noise exposure. He worked for three years in the railroad industry and seven years in the trucking industry. Both industries were known to involve potentially hazardous noise levels. Per the examiner, the delayed onset of the Veteran's symptoms was more closely associated with cumulative noise exposure from his post-service occupations, rather than noise exposure during a brief period of active duty.

The April 2025 VA examiner is competent to offer an opinion. The examiner engaged in speculation when attributing the Veteran's hearing loss to his post-service employment. The examiner noted that the railroad and trucking industries were known to involve the potential for hazardous noise but did not actually analyze whether the Veteran experienced hazardous noise during his employment in either industry. As discussed above, there was no consideration of the type or degree of actual noise experienced, the use or non-use of hearing protection, or the particular duties of the Veteran's jobs, which may or may not have exposed him to any noise at all. The conclusion regarding the short duration of the Veteran's service also did not assess whether auditory damage could be inflicted during such a timeframe if the hazardous noise involved was severe enough
5 VA examiner is competent to offer an opinion. The examiner engaged in speculation when attributing the Veteran's hearing loss to his post-service employment. The examiner noted that the railroad and trucking industries were known to involve the potential for hazardous noise but did not actually analyze whether the Veteran experienced hazardous noise during his employment in either industry. As discussed above, there was no consideration of the type or degree of actual noise experienced, the use or non-use of hearing protection, or the particular duties of the Veteran's jobs, which may or may not have exposed him to any noise at all. The conclusion regarding the short duration of the Veteran's service also did not assess whether auditory damage could be inflicted during such a timeframe if the hazardous noise involved was severe enough. The opinion is not credible, and the Board assigns it low probative weight.

Here, the Board resolves all doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether his BHL was caused by military noise exposure. Thus, service connection for BHL is granted.

M. M. Celli

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Gibbons, Douglas K.

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