HEARING LOSS

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from November 1971 to October 1975, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran claims his hearing loss began in service due to exposure to jet engine noise while working on the flight line without hearing protection. The Board found that the Veteran's military occupational specialty indicated a probability of acoustic noise exposure, and his testimony regarding flight line duties and lack of hearing protection was credible and probative, being uncontradicted by the record. While the Veteran's statements about the exact onset of hearing loss were inconsistent between two Board hearings, the Board found his later testimony credible as it was supported by service treatment records showing a decrease in hearing from entrance to separation examinations. The Board found previous VA opinions inadequate because they relied on contradictory IOM findings, improperly used the absence of in-service findings as negative evidence, failed to address the Veteran's lay statements, and were based on inaccurate factual premises regarding noise exposure probability and delayed onset of hearing loss. The Board found the evidence persuasively favored service connection, granting entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss on a presumptive basis.

Rationale

Veteran's MOS indicates probability of acoustic noise exposure; Credible testimony regarding flight line noise exposure without hearing protection; Service treatment records show decrease in hearing from entrance to separation; Previous VA opinions found inadequate due to reliance on contradictory IOM findings and improper use of negative evidence

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038841
Decision Date: 04/27/26	Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 231226-403151
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

New and relevant evidence having been received, readjudication of the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In April 2019, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 

2. Following the April 2019 Board decision, new evidence was received relevant to the issue of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 

3. The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had onset during his active service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 501, 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.2501.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 1112, 1113, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1971 to October 1975.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2023 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Because the November 2023 rating decision on appeal was issued after February 19, 2019, it is subject to the Appeals Modernization Act ("AMA"). 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400(a)(1); 19.2(a).

In the December 2023 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on January 20, 2026.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the November 2023 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) 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. 

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c).

Whether new and relevant evidence has been received for the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss

Under the AMA, a claimant who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim any time after the AOJ issues notice of a decision, regardless of whether the claim is pending or has become finally adjudicated. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. "If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to a supplemental claim, the Secretary shall readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record." 38 U.S.C. § 5108(a).

"New evidence" means evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a). "Relevant evidence" refers to any evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue, to include a theory of entitlement not previously addressed. Id. 

In determining whether a readjudication is warranted, the credibility of evidence is generally presumed, unless patently incredible. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). Ultimately, the spirit of the laws governing considerations of whether the previously adjudicated claims should be readjudicated is enabling rather than preclusive. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(a), 3.2501(a); Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-121 (2010).

For VA to readjudicate the claim, the evidentiary record must include new and relevant evidence that was not of record as of the date of notice of the prior decision. Upon receipt of a substantially complete supplemental claim,
 evidence is generally presumed, unless patently incredible. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). Ultimately, the spirit of the laws governing considerations of whether the previously adjudicated claims should be readjudicated is enabling rather than preclusive. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(a), 3.2501(a); Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-121 (2010).

For VA to readjudicate the claim, the evidentiary record must include new and relevant evidence that was not of record as of the date of notice of the prior decision. Upon receipt of a substantially complete supplemental claim, VA's duty to assist in the gathering of evidence under § 3.159 of this part is triggered and includes any such assistance that may help secure new and relevant evidence as defined in paragraph (a) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 to complete the supplemental claim application. Id. 

In this case, the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied in an April 2019 Board decision. In August 2023, the Veteran filed a Supplemental Claim seeking entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In the November 2023 rating decision on appeal, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss because the evidence submitted by the Veteran was not new and relevant.

Following the Veteran's August 2023 Supplemental Claim, in September 2023 the Veteran's military personnel records were added to the claims file, which included a May 1971 entrance examination with audiometer results. Additionally, in November 2023, a VA examination and opinion for the Veteran's hearing loss were obtained. The Board finds these records constitute new and relevant evidence pertaining to a current disability, an in-service event, and a nexus. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence can be identified to warrant readjudication of the Veteran's claim. Therefore, readjudication of the claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted.   

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss

The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss began in service and continued since then due to his exposure to jets and jet engines while working on the flight line in service. See September 2011 Statement in Support of Claim; January 2026 Hearing Transcript. 

Generally, to establish service connection for a present disability, 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Additionally, for chronic diseases shown as such in service so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless attributable to intercurrent causes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). If chronicity in service is not established, a showing of continuity of symptoms after discharge may support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). In addition, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, chronic diseases are presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a).

When determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance or "nearly equal," and does not require that the evidence be in exact equipoise. Id. at 780.

Initially, the Board notes that in the November 2023 rating decision, the AOJ made the following favorable findings: 1) the Veteran has been diagnosed with hearing loss; 2) the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during the Veteran's service, as his military occupational specialty (MOS) demonstrates a probability of acoustic noise exposure; 3) the Veteran has sufficient service to meet the minimum requirements
4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance or "nearly equal," and does not require that the evidence be in exact equipoise. Id. at 780.

Initially, the Board notes that in the November 2023 rating decision, the AOJ made the following favorable findings: 1) the Veteran has been diagnosed with hearing loss; 2) the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during the Veteran's service, as his military occupational specialty (MOS) demonstrates a probability of acoustic noise exposure; 3) the Veteran has sufficient service to meet the minimum requirements for presumptive service connection; and 4) the claimed disability is a chronic disease which may be presumptively linked to the Veteran's service. 

In considering the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had its onset during his active service. 

The Board first notes that hearing loss, as an organic disease of the nervous system, is a chronic disease subject to presumptive service connection. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). Therefore, the presumptive service connection provisions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) are applicable in this case. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury or event; manifested to a compensable degree within one year of his discharge from service; or showed continuous symptoms between active service and the initial, post-service manifestations of the disability. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Here, the first element of service connection is met because it is undisputed that the Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. 

Turning to the second element, an in-service incurrence, the Board notes, as cited  above, it is undisputed that the Veteran's MOS of personnel specialist demonstrates a probability of acoustic noise exposure. Additionally, the Veteran has asserted that his hearing was damaged during service when he guarded the C-5 aircraft and was exposed to its engine noise without hearing protection. See January 2012 Statement in Support of Claim. During a May 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that when he was stationed in Germany, he was required to perform duty guarding jets on the flight line every two weeks. See May 2016 Hearing Testimony. There, he was exposed to jet engine noises without hearing protection. Id. He reported that he was stationed in Germany from June 1974 to October 1975 and his shift on the flight line occurred on the weekends from 4:00 PM to around 12:00 AM. During the January 2026 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that when he served on the flight line he was exposed to the C-5 galaxy aircraft, which had four or six engines. He reported that when he served on the flight line, he was positioned right next to this aircraft. The Board finds the Veteran competent to report the nature of his noise exposure in service and that he was not provided any hearing protection in service, as such matters are observable and within his personal realm of knowledge. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran's statements concerning his noise exposure in service to be credible and probative because they are uncontradicted by the evidence of record. Therefore, the Board finds that the second element of service connection has been met to the extent that the evidence establishes that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise during service. 

As for whether the Veteran experienced hearing loss during service, the Board notes that the Veteran's testimony in this regard has been slightly inconsistent. Specifically, during the May 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he first began noticing hearing problems about a year after his separation from service and that he first noticed ringing in his ears around August or September 1976. See May 2016 Hearing Testimony. However, during the January 2026 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he experienced hearing loss immediately upon working on the flight line and that he and his fellow servicemembers working on the flight line had trouble hearing each other. See January 2026 Hearing Transcript. He reported that he did not complain about this hearing loss after service and
As for whether the Veteran experienced hearing loss during service, the Board notes that the Veteran's testimony in this regard has been slightly inconsistent. Specifically, during the May 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he first began noticing hearing problems about a year after his separation from service and that he first noticed ringing in his ears around August or September 1976. See May 2016 Hearing Testimony. However, during the January 2026 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he experienced hearing loss immediately upon working on the flight line and that he and his fellow servicemembers working on the flight line had trouble hearing each other. See January 2026 Hearing Transcript. He reported that he did not complain about this hearing loss after service and just put up with it until it became so bad that he sought treatment. Id. 

The Board notes that when comparing the Veteran's audiological evaluation results from his entrance and separation examinations, a slight decrease in hearing is demonstrated. Specifically, the audiological evaluation contained in the Veteran's May 1971 entrance examination showed pure tone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: 

	HERTZ

 	 500	1000	2000	3000	4000

RIGHT	 5	5	5	N/A	15

LEFT	 10	10	5	N/A	15

The audiological evaluation contained in the Veteran's May 1975 separation examination showed pure tone thresholds, in decibels, as follows:

	HERTZ

 	 500	1000	2000	3000	4000

RIGHT	 15	10	10	10	25

LEFT	 10	15	10	10	20

Thus, when comparing the entrance examination results to the separation examination, the Board finds that the Veteran demonstrated a decrease in hearing during service. Accordingly, although the Veteran's January 2026 testimony that his hearing loss began in service is contradicted by his May 2016 testimony that his hearing loss began within the year after service, the Board nevertheless finds the Veteran's statement concerning the onset of hearing loss in service to be credible because it is supported by the service treatment records (STRs) demonstrating a decrease in hearing during service. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence shows the Veteran exhibited decreased hearing in service and the second element of service connection has been met. 

Turning to the third element, a nexus, the Board observes that several VA examinations concerning the Veteran's hearing loss have been obtained. The first VA examination was obtained in July 2012. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported gradual decrease in hearing for approximately 25 years with no precipitating event. He reported that he was a personnel specialist working in the flight line without hearing protection. Additionally, he reported qualifying on the range without hearing protection. After service, he indicated that he worked for the postal service for 32 years and at the VA for 2 years in a file room with no noise exposure. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not caused by service. As a rationale, the examiner stated that testing at induction and discharge showed no significant change in hearing in the area associated with hearing change due to noise. Though the examiner noted there was a shift in hearing, the examiner found this shift was not significant (no more than 10 decibels at any frequency). The examiner stated that the Veteran's hearing was well within normal limits at both induction and discharge. Additionally, the examiner cited to a conclusion by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that hearing changes due to noise exposure did not enjoy a delay in onset nor did hearing changes progress once the source of the noise was discontinued. Therefore, the examiner concluded that, because the Veteran's hearing was normal at discharge with no significant shift, no further damage or change to the Veteran's hearing was likely attributable to his service. 

Another VA examination was obtained in November 2018, in which the examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. The examiner's rationale was that because there was no hearing loss on the exit examination and the Veteran had been out of service for over forty years, it was less likely than not that his hearing loss was due to military noise exposure. The examiner further stated that the IOM had concluded that hearing changes due to noise exposure did not have a delay in onset nor did hearing changes progress once the source of noise was discontinued. 

Another VA examination was obtained in November 2023. The examiner noted that the Veteran denied pre-military noise exposure, that he reported exposure to flight line and aircraft noise during service, and that he reported exposure to chain saws and factory noise after service. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not caused by or a result of service. As a rationale, the examiner stated that the Veteran's MOS had a low probability
 forty years, it was less likely than not that his hearing loss was due to military noise exposure. The examiner further stated that the IOM had concluded that hearing changes due to noise exposure did not have a delay in onset nor did hearing changes progress once the source of noise was discontinued. 

Another VA examination was obtained in November 2023. The examiner noted that the Veteran denied pre-military noise exposure, that he reported exposure to flight line and aircraft noise during service, and that he reported exposure to chain saws and factory noise after service. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not caused by or a result of service. As a rationale, the examiner stated that the Veteran's MOS had a low probability for noise exposure and the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits at the time of his separation from service. Additionally, the examiner stated that current research did not support late onset of noise-induced hearing loss. 

The Board finds the July 2012 and November 2018 VA opinions inadequate for adjudication purposes because they relied on an IOM report concluding that hearing changes due to noise exposure did not have a delay in onset and that hearing changes did not progress once the source of noise was discontinued. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) addressed the cited IOM report in McCray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 243 (2019). The Court found that the report contained contradictory findings concerning the potential for delayed-onset hearing loss. In this case, the July 2012 and November 2018 VA examiners did not address the report's qualifying or contradictory findings in their opinions; therefore, the Board finds that the opinions are insufficient for determining whether service connection for hearing loss is warranted. Additionally, the July 2012, November 2018, and November 2023 VA examiners improperly relied on the absence of a hearing loss disability in service as substantive negative evidence. Buczynski v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 221, 224 (2011) (stating that "[w]hen assessing a claim, the Board may not consider the absence of evidence as substantive negative evidence."). Moreover, the examiners did not consider the Veteran's lay statements concerning the onset of his hearing loss symptoms. Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 258-60 (2020) (holding that unless the Board finds the lay statements not competent or not credible, an examiner's opinion must address the Veteran's relevant lay statements in order to include enough detail to inform the Board's decision. Failure to do so renders that opinion inadequate.). Additionally, the November 2023 VA examiner's opinion was based on inaccurate facts, as the examiner noted that the Veteran's MOS had a low probability for hazardous noise exposure, which conflicts with the RO's favorable finding that the Veteran's MOS concedes the probability for acoustic noise exposure. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (holding that a medical opinion based on an inaccurate factual premise has no probative value). Finally, the November 2023 VA examiner did not consider the Veteran's lay statement that he was exposed to noise from working on the flight line during his service in Germany. Accordingly, the Board gives the July 2012, November 2018, and November 2023 VA opinions no probative weight.

The Board finds that, in this case, a nexus can be established on a presumptive basis. As discussed above, the Board has found credible the Veteran's testimony that his hearing loss onset in service, as it is supported by the STRs showing a decrease in hearing from entrance to separation. Additionally, the Veteran has repeatedly asserted that his hearing loss continued and gradually worsened since its onset, until he was formally diagnosed with hearing loss in August 2011 and provided hearing aids. See August 2011 VA treatment record; August 2012 VA examination; May 2016 Hearing Testimony; January 2026 Hearing Transcript. The Board finds the Veteran competent to report lay observable symptoms such as decreased or worsening hearing. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). Additionally, the Board finds the Veteran's statements in this regard to be credible because they are uncontradicted by the competent evidence of record. Thus, the Board finds the Veteran's statements, combined with the STRs, competent and credible to establish continuity of symptomatology of hearing loss since service, warranting presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

(continued on next page)

 

In sum, the evidence of record supports a finding that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted
, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). Additionally, the Board finds the Veteran's statements in this regard to be credible because they are uncontradicted by the competent evidence of record. Thus, the Board finds the Veteran's statements, combined with the STRs, competent and credible to establish continuity of symptomatology of hearing loss since service, warranting presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

(continued on next page)

 

In sum, the evidence of record supports a finding that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted on a presumptive basis. In this instance, the evidence is neither evenly nor approximately balanced with regard to whether service connection is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs in favor of such a finding. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is therefore not for application as to this claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

 

L. CHU

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	E. Corcoran, 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.