HEARING LOSS

Summary

The veteran, who served from August 1984 to March 1988, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 rating decision and any evidence submitted within 90 days of the Veteran's appeal. The AOJ had favorably found in-service noise exposure related to the Veteran's MOS as a missile maintenance technician. However, the Board found no current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss meeting VA criteria. A chiropractor's report in June 2024 noted the Veteran's subjective complaints of hearing loss and acoustic trauma exposure, and opined a nexus to service. The Board afforded this report no probative weight, citing the chiropractor's lack of audiology credentials and incomplete testing. Conversely, a November 2024 VA examination by an audiologist revealed normal hearing thresholds and speech discrimination scores, meeting VA standards. The Board afforded this VA examination great probative weight. The Board found the Veteran competent to report symptoms but not to diagnose hearing loss, and his subjective reports were afforded no weight. The Board also noted that the Saunders decision regarding pain as a disability did not apply to conditions listed in the Rating Schedule. Ultimately, the Board found the weight of the probative evidence against the claim, rendering the benefit of the doubt doctrine inapplicable. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss meeting VA criteria.; Chiropractor's report afforded no probative weight due to lack of audiology credentials and incomplete testing.; VA audiologist's examination showed normal hearing thresholds and speech discrimination scores.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040053
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 250528-548035
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. 

FINDING OF FACT

At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss as defined by Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of such disability prior to the Veteran's filing of a claim.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1984 to March 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in April 2025 by a VA Regional Office under the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In May 2025, the Veteran timely appealed such rating decision by submitting a Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182) and selected the evidence submission 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, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, he 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, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Where a veteran served for at least 90 days during a period of war or after December 31, 1946, and manifests certain chronic diseases, such as organic diseases of the nervous system, to a degree of 10 percent within one year, from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In an October 4, 1995, opinion, VA's Under Secretary for Health determined that it was appropriate to consider high frequency sensorineural hearing loss an organic disease of the nervous system. Alternatively, when a disease at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) is not shown to be chronic during service or the one-year presumptive period, service connection may also be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303
 there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In an October 4, 1995, opinion, VA's Under Secretary for Health determined that it was appropriate to consider high frequency sensorineural hearing loss an organic disease of the nervous system. Alternatively, when a disease at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) is not shown to be chronic during service or the one-year presumptive period, service connection may also be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). However, the use of continuity of symptoms to establish service connection is limited to those diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) and does not apply to other disabilities which might be considered chronic from a medical standpoint. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Pertinent to a claim for service connection, such a determination requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992). Under applicable regulation, the term "disability" means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability," and held that "pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability").

In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time, he files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. However, in Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013), the Court held that when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a claimant filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency.

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 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.

As an initial matter, in the April 2025 rating decision, an AOJ favorably found that the Veteran had in-service noise exposure coincident with his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a missile maintenance technician. The Board is bound by such favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). However, as the Veteran does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss as defined by VA at any time proximate to his claim, service connection for such disorder is not warranted.

In this regard, the Veteran has not identified any post-service treatment records referable to his bilateral hearing loss. Nonetheless, in June 2024, Dr. A.N., a chiropractor, noted the Veteran's report of exposure to acoustic trauma from missile silos, engines, and generators during service, and experienced progressive hearing loss since such time. She reported that his hearing was tested in a room wherein normal day to day noise was introduced to test functional hearing under day-to-day conditions, which revealed bilateral hearing loss under normal conditions of 50 percent of the right ear and 40
 Veteran does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss as defined by VA at any time proximate to his claim, service connection for such disorder is not warranted.

In this regard, the Veteran has not identified any post-service treatment records referable to his bilateral hearing loss. Nonetheless, in June 2024, Dr. A.N., a chiropractor, noted the Veteran's report of exposure to acoustic trauma from missile silos, engines, and generators during service, and experienced progressive hearing loss since such time. She reported that his hearing was tested in a room wherein normal day to day noise was introduced to test functional hearing under day-to-day conditions, which revealed bilateral hearing loss under normal conditions of 50 percent of the right ear and 40 percent of the left ear. Dr. A.N. also opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is as likely as not directly and causally related to his military service and acoustic trauma therein.    

However, there is no indication that the testing performed by Dr. A.N., who is a chiropractor and not an audiologist, conforms to VA standards. Further, while she indicated that the Veteran was asked to attend a puretone audiogram, there is no indication that such testing was completed. Thus, the Board affords Dr. A.N.'s assessment no probative weight. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 9 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007).

Conversely, at a November 2024 VA examination, audiometric testing revealed that pure tone thresholds in decibels at the tested frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz were 20, 25, 25, 25, and 25 in the right ear and 20, 20, 20, 25, and 30 in the left ear, respectively, and the Veteran's speech discrimination score was 94 percent in the right ear and 100 percent in the left ear. Here, the Board affords great probative weight to such VA examination as it was conducted by an audiologist and includes all necessary testing required by VA regulations. 

Moreover, while the Veteran is competent to report his in-service noise exposure as well as his current difficulty hearing, he is not competent as a lay person to diagnose hearing loss as defined by VA as such requires the administration and interpretation of audiometric testing. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007) (although the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). Thus, his reports as to the presence of a bilateral hearing loss as defined by VA regulations are afforded no probative weight.

Additionally, while the Veteran reported that his claimed bilateral hearing loss impacted his ability to work at the November 2024 VA examination, the Board finds that Saunders, supra, does not apply to conditions listed in the Rating Schedule, which includes the definition of disabling hearing loss in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Larson v. McDonough, 10 F.4th 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("Saunders articulated a definition of disability for [section] 1110 purposes that is distinct from and not coextensive with disabilities listed on the rating schedule." 10 F.4th 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1241, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Saunders did not apply where a condition is listed in the rating schedule).

Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that at no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss as defined by VA regulations, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of a claim. See McClain, supra; Romanowsky, supra. Thus, service connection for such disorder is not warranted.

In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the weight of the probative evidence is against the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, such doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal and his claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107
 based on the foregoing, the Board finds that at no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss as defined by VA regulations, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of a claim. See McClain, supra; Romanowsky, supra. Thus, service connection for such disorder is not warranted.

In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the weight of the probative evidence is against the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, such doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal and his claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

A. JAEGER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Spielmann, Jill F.

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.