HEARING LOSS

PAUL SORISIO · 2026 · Case ID: A26040082

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from October 1985 to October 1989, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Board found that the veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, satisfying the first element for service connection. However, the veteran's service treatment records were silent regarding hearing issues, and both enlistment and separation examinations showed normal hearing. The VA examiner noted the hearing loss configuration was inconsistent with noise exposure, the reported onset was many years post-service, and the veteran's MOS had a low probability of noise exposure. The examiner concluded the hearing loss was less likely than not related to service. The Board found the VA examiner competent and credible, assigning substantial probative weight to the opinion, and denied service connection for hearing loss. For tinnitus, the Board acknowledged the current diagnosis but noted the veteran did not report tinnitus in service, and service records were silent on the issue. The VA examiner concluded it was less likely than not related to service, citing the veteran's statement of no in-service tinnitus and low noise exposure probability. The Board found the VA examiner competent and credible, assigning substantial probative weight, and denied service connection for tinnitus.

Rationale

Current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss established.; Service treatment records silent for hearing issues.; Normal hearing at enlistment and separation examinations.; VA examiner found hearing loss configuration inconsistent with noise exposure.; VA examiner found onset many years post-service.; VA examiner found low probability of noise exposure for MOS.; VA examiner opinion found less likely than not related to service.; VA examiner deemed competent and credible.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

200929-113430

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040082
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 200929-113430
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

Service connection for tinnitus is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes was not shown as chronic in service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease.

2. The Veteran's bilateral tinnitus was not shown as chronic in service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385.

2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 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 October 1985 to October 1989.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in August 2020 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the September 29, 2020 VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On June 6, 2024, the Veteran submitted correspondence to VA indicating his desire to withdraw his request for a hearing. See 6/6/2024 VA Form 27-0820. Based upon the selection of the Hearing docket, the Board may consider the evidence of record as of August 13, 2020-the date of the rating decision on appeal, and evidence submitted at or within 90 days of VA's receipt of withdrawal of the Board hearing request on June 6, 2024. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. If the Veteran submitted evidence that was added to the record after August 13, 2020 and before the June 6, 2024 receipt of the withdrawal, or more than 90 days following the hearing withdrawal, the Board did not consider it. If the Veteran wishes to have VA consider any evidence that was not considered, a supplemental claim should be submitted identifying such evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

Regarding representation, it is noted that VA received a June 2023 VA Form 21-22 appointing Disabled American Veterans, as well as a subsequent December 2024 VA Form 21-22a, appointing attorney James Brzezinski. 6/6/2023 VA Form 21-22; 12/6/2024 VA Form 21-22a. The Veteran was previously represented in these matters by the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs (ODVA). 2/11/2020 VA Form 21-22. Following the submission of his VA Form 10182, a December 31, 2020 letter from the Board informed the Veteran that his appeal had been docketed and that he had 90 days from the date the Board received his VA Form 10182 or until the Board issued a decision (whichever came first) to request a change in representation. 12/31/2020 BVA Letter.

Here, both the June 2023 VA Form 21-22 and the December 2024 VA Form 21-22a were received after the expiration of the 90 days referenced in the December 2020 letter. Pertinent VA regulations state that if a change in representation is requested more than 90 days after certification, good cause must be shown for the change. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(b) (eff. Feb. 19, 2019). The April 2023 and December 2024 requests were made after the 90-day period noted in the letter from the Board in December 2020 and the Veteran provided no cause for his change in representation. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the ODVA is the Veteran's representative for the purpose of this decision. Id.; see also Perez v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 190, 194-95 (2012) (concluding that when the Veteran submitted a request to change representation more than 90 days after his appeal was certified to the Board, he did not avail himself of the "good cause" provision contained in 38 C.F.R. § 20.1305(b) (now 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(b)) (eff. Feb. 19, 2019).

Additionally, the December 2020 docketing letter copying the ODVA provided notice that the Veteran's appeal was at the Board and that it was nearing time for adjudication, so the Board finds that the Veteran has been accorded full right to representation in all stages of this appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.5 (2024). For future matters and considerations after this decision is issued, attorney James Brzezinski will be the Veteran's representative of record (barring another change of representation).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish entitlement to service connection, there must generally be 1) evidence of a current disability; 2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and 3) causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

Service connection may also be established for a current disability on the basis of a presumption that certain chronic diseases, such as hearing loss, manifesting themselves to a certain degree within a certain time after service must have had their onset in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309(a). Generally, the disease must have manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(3).

For the showing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "Chronic." 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). When the disease identity is established, there is no requirement of evidentiary showing of continuity. Id. Continuity of symptomatology is required only where the condition noted during service (or in the presumptive period) is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. Id. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. Id. Continuity of symptomatology is only applicable to those diseases recognized as chronic for VA purposes. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (2013); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss that is the result of
to support the claim. Id. Continuity of symptomatology is only applicable to those diseases recognized as chronic for VA purposes. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (2013); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309.

1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss that is the result of hazardous noise exposure during service, including exposure to aircraft engines on the flightline. 2/11/2020 VA Form 21-526EZ.

As to the first element of service connection, that of a current disability, the Board notes the Veteran's August 2020 VA examination in which he was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. 8/10/2020 C&P Exam, p. 4. Accordingly, the Board finds that the first element of service connection is established by the record.

Regarding the second element of service connection, requiring medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of the in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are silent for reports of or treatment for hearing-related issues in service. The Veteran had normal hearing at both his enlistment examination in June 1985, as well as at his separation examination in October 1989. 12/16/2019 STR, pp. 14-15; 2/28/2020 Military Personnel Record, pp. 11-12. Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran did not report any hearing loss, ear trouble, or use of hearing aids on his Report of Medical History at the time of his separation from service in October 1989. 2/28/2020 Military Personnel Record, p. 13.

The Board notes that the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) was that of electronic communications and cryptography equipment systems specialist, which has a low probability of noise exposure. See 2/11/2020 DD 214; 8/13/2020 Rating Decision, p. 3. However, the Board does acknowledge the Veteran's argument that he was frequently in the vicinity of aircraft engines during service. 2/11/2020 VA Form 21-526EZ; 9/29/2020 VA Form 10182.

The Veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2020 to address his claim. 8/10/2020 C&P Exam. At the examination, the Veteran reported that he first noticed his hearing loss ten to fifteen years prior (between 2005 and 2010), which was approximately fifteen to twenty years after his discharge from service. Id. at 5. The Veteran reported his post-service occupational history as an electrician and in management/engineering, and indicated that he participated in recreational target shooting with hearing protection. Id. at 6. In concluding that the Veteran's hearing loss was less likely than not related to his military service, the VA examiner indicated that the Veteran's configuration of hearing loss was not characteristic of hearing loss associated with noise exposure. Id. In addition, the examiner cited to the period of time between discharge from service and the reported onset, as well as the low probability of noise exposure associated with the Veteran's MOS. Id.

The probative value of medical opinion evidence is based on the medical expert's personal examination of the patient, their knowledge and skill in analyzing the data, and the medical conclusion reached. Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993). Whether a clinician provides a basis for a medical opinion goes to the weight or credibility of the evidence in the adjudication of the merits. See Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998). Other factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion are the clinician's access to the claims folder and the thoroughness and detail of the opinion. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000); Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008).

Here, the August 2020 opinion was provided by a VA medical professional who possesses the necessary education, training, and expertise to provide the requested opinions. Additionally, the opinion is also shown to have been based on a review of the Veteran's record and is accompanied by a sufficient explanation as to why the Veteran's hearing loss is not related to his military service. Specifically, the VA examiner identified that the configuration of the hearing loss was not consistent with noise exposure, that the Veteran had normal hearing and no complaints of hearing loss at his discharge from service in 1989, and that he reported the onset to be between 2005 and 2010. Furthermore, the Board notes that there is no positive nexus opinion of record. The Board thus finds that the August 2020 VA examiner is both competent and credible and assigns examination report substantial probative weight.

With respect to his post-service treatment records, the Board notes that there are no medical records evidencing that the Veteran sought treatment for or reported hearing loss at any point from the time of his discharge from service in 1989 up through the filing of his claim.

After careful consideration of the competent and probative evidence of record, although the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's claim for service connection, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively against the Veteran's claim and, therefore, is not warranted. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). Accordingly, the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

2. Service connection for tinnitus.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral tinnitus caused by his in-service noise exposure. 2/11/2020 VA Form 21-526EZ.

Regarding the first element of service connection, that of a current disability, the Board notes the RO's August 2020 favorable finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of recurrent tinnitus. 8/13/2020 Rating Decision, p. 4. Because there is no clear and unmistakable error in this favorable finding, the Board now finds that the first element of service connection is established in the record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

As to the second element of service connection, that of the in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, the Board notes that the Veteran reported at the August 2020 VA examination that he did not experience tinnitus while in service. 8/10/2020 C&P Exam, p. 7. Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran's STRs are silent for in-service complaints or treatment for the condition and that his separation examination (Report of Medical History) in October 1989 made no report of experiencing any ear trouble. 2/28/2020 Military Personnel Record, pp. 11-13.

The Veteran was afforded an August 2020 VA examination to address his symptomatology. See 8/10/2020 C&P Exam. After reviewing the Veteran's VA e-folder and conducting an interview, the examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's tinnitus was due to his military service. Id. at 7. As rationale, the VA examiner referenced the Veteran's statement that he did not experience tinnitus in service, as well as the Veteran's low probability of hazardous noise exposure associated with his MOS. Id. Moreover, the examiner indicated that the Veteran's tinnitus was most likely associated with his hearing loss, which was determined to have been onset many years following service. Id. The Board finds the VA examiner to be competent and credible and assigns the examination report substantial probative weight.

The Board notes that there are no other medical opinions of record and that there are no additional post-service medical records evidencing reports or treatment for tinnitus.

After review of the competent and probative evidence of record, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is persuasively against the claim. Accordingly, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not for application and the Veteran's claim is denied. Lynch, 21 F.4th 781-82.

Paul Sorisio

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Donahue, Thomas P.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer