HEARING LOSS

Summary

The veteran, who served from September 1986 to July 1995, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Board noted that the February 2025 decision conceded in-service noise exposure and toxic exposure risk activity (TERA), satisfying the in-service injury element. However, the Board reviewed the three-element test for service connection, requiring evidence of a current disability, in-service incurrence or aggravation, and a causal relationship. The Board focused on the definition of hearing loss for VA purposes, which requires specific audiometric findings and speech discrimination criteria. An October 2024 VA hearing loss and tinnitus DBQ showed puretone thresholds and speech recognition scores that did not meet the threshold for a compensable hearing loss disability. The Board found no other medical evidence of abnormal hearing or sufficiently impaired hearing to constitute a disability for VA purposes. The Board concluded that the veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss disability, nor has he had one at any time relevant to the claim. Therefore, the evidence was persuasively against the claim, and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine was not applicable. Service connection for hearing loss was denied.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes; Audiometric test results did not meet threshold for compensable hearing loss; No other medical evidence of abnormal hearing

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040431
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 250222-519323
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for hearing loss is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a bilateral hearing loss disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for hearing loss are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1986 to July 1995.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2025 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  In the February 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 February 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. 

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 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. 

The Board notes that the Veteran expressed an interest in filing a claim for tinnitus but has not yet done so.  He is encouraged to speak to his representative about filing a claim for that disability.

Service connection for hearing loss

As an initial matter, the Board notes that the February 2025 decision conceded both in-service noise exposure and in-service participation in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA).  There is no evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in this favorable finding and so the in-service injury element is satisfied.  38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).

Service connection may be granted for a 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.  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.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

A hearing loss disability is defined for VA compensation purposes with regard to audiologic testing involving puretone frequency thresholds and speech discrimination criteria.  38 C.F.R. § 3.385.  The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels and that higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss.  See Hensley v. Brown,
307, 3.309.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

A hearing loss disability is defined for VA compensation purposes with regard to audiologic testing involving puretone frequency thresholds and speech discrimination criteria.  38 C.F.R. § 3.385.  The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels and that higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss.  See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993).  For purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, however, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 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 of 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.  Id.

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss disability and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim.  Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

An October 2024 VA hearing loss and tinnitus disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) includes audiometric test results for both ears.  Puretone thresholds in the right ear at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz were 15, 15, 20, 15, and 10 dB respectively.  Puretone thresholds in the left ear at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz were 15, 15, 20, 15, and 25 dB respectively.  Speech recognition scores obtained using the Maryland CNC Test were 98 percent for the right ear and 96 percent for the left ear.  At that time, the Veteran reported recurrent buzzing in his ears beginning seven years earlier.

There is no other medical evidence of record showing abnormal hearing and no evidence of sufficiently impaired hearing to constitute a hearing loss disability for VA purposes under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

To the extent that the Veteran believes he has a current bilateral hearing disability a diagnosis of hearing loss disability for VA purposes requires specific audiometric findings.  Therefore, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case.

The Board notes that bilateral hearing loss is an enumerated condition under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a) for which service connection will be presumed.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; see also Walker, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338.  In this case, however, as the Veteran does not have hearing loss for VA purposes, service connection cannot be presumed.

Accordingly, the evidence is persuasively against the claim.  As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable and service connection for hearing loss is not warranted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

JIMMY L. BARDIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Houbeck, Bridgid

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.