HEARING LOSS

Summary

The Veteran, who served from April 1969 to August 1969, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Board notes a complex procedural history involving the timely submission of a notice of disagreement in July 2020, which was erroneously not docketed by the Board, leading to the appeal period remaining open. The Veteran's military occupational specialty was light air defense artillery crewman. Evidence supporting the claim includes a January 2017 letter from the Veteran's treating physician opining that the hearing loss and tinnitus are most likely due to loud noise exposure during service with artillery. The Veteran also submitted lay statements from his wife and himself, detailing complaints of ringing in the ears and hearing concerns since service, and asserting continuity of symptoms. A VA examination provided a negative opinion, stating the Veteran's separation report was negative for hearing issues, but this opinion was deemed inadequate by the Board for lacking medical rationale. The Board found the Veteran competent to identify his symptoms and their continuity. Given the conceded acoustic trauma during service, the positive treating physician opinion, and evidence of continuity of symptoms, the Board presumed the conditions were incurred in service. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was therefore granted on a presumptive basis.

Rationale

Continuity of symptomatology since service; Presumed incurred in service; Positive treating physician opinion; Inadequate VA opinion

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040456
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250925-592575
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

Service connection for tinnitus is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes is presumed to have been incurred in service, based on continuity of symptomatology since service.

2. The Veteran's current tinnitus is presumed to have been incurred in service, based on continuity of symptomatology since service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 April 1969 to August 1969.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2025 rating decision.

In his September 2025 VA Form 10182 (notice of disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket.  He testified at a Board hearing on January 26, 2026.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record as of August 5, 2025, date of the rating 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 the Veteran submitted evidence that was added to the record after August 5, 2025, and before the Board hearing on January 26, 2026, or more than 90 days after the Board hearing, 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.

***

The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.  

As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the Veteran has continuously pursued both issues since December 6, 2019, when he submitted a supplemental claim.  In this regard, the Board notes that, on July 8, 2020, VA received a notice of disagreement (VA Form 10182) regarding a June 2020 higher-level review (HLR) decision.  At the time, this notice of disagreement was not docketed.  In January 2022, a VA letter to the Veteran's congressional representative acknowledged that a notice of disagreement was received on July 8, 2020, and explained that an appeal had not been established because the notice of disagreement was submitted to the VA claims intake center and not directly to the Board.  The letter further stated that the notice of disagreement would be forwarded to the Board.  Shortly thereafter, also in January 2022, the Board sent a letter to the Veteran, informing him that it had received a January 2022 notice of disagreement but could not accept it, as the decision on appeal was from June 2020 and the notice of disagreement was therefore untimely.  This letter from the Board was erroneous, as it ignored the fact that a timely notice of disagreement was previously received in July 2020.  

Because the Board failed to docket the Veteran's July 2020 appeal, the Veteran's December 2019 claim of service connection did not become final and was therefore pending in February 2023, when the Veteran submitted a new supplemental claim with new and relevant evidence.  The AOJ adjudicated this claim in May 2023 and again in January 2024.  The Veteran submitted a supplemental claim with new and relevant evidence within a year of each of these decisions.  The August 2025 rating decision on appeal stems from the most recent of these supplemental claims, which was received in July 2025.

In view of the above procedural history, the Board concludes that the period on appeal goes back to December 6, 2019.

***

The decision on appeal determined that the Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.  The decision also found military noise exposure based on the Veteran's military
 2023, when the Veteran submitted a new supplemental claim with new and relevant evidence.  The AOJ adjudicated this claim in May 2023 and again in January 2024.  The Veteran submitted a supplemental claim with new and relevant evidence within a year of each of these decisions.  The August 2025 rating decision on appeal stems from the most recent of these supplemental claims, which was received in July 2025.

In view of the above procedural history, the Board concludes that the period on appeal goes back to December 6, 2019.

***

The decision on appeal determined that the Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.  The decision also found military noise exposure based on the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) of light air defense artillery crewman.  The Board is bound by these favorable findings.

In December 2019, the Veteran submitted a letter (dated January 2017) from the Veteran's treating physician, who opined that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus are most likely the result of exposure to extremely loud noise during the Veteran's military experience with artillery.

In contrast, in January 2020, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus are less likely than not related to military noise exposure.  The examiner's rationale was essentially that the Veteran's report of medical history at separation was negative for hearing loss or ear trouble.

In February 2020, the Veteran submitted a statement from his wife, who recalled that, during service, the Veteran complained of ringing in his ears associated with gun and artillery fire, adding that the Veteran's symptoms have worsened over time.  In a September 2025 statement, the Veteran's spouse reiterated that the Veteran complained of ringing and concerns with his hearing during basis training.

In a January 2024 statement, the Veteran asserted that both the hearing loss and tinnitus had their onset during service and persist to this day.  At the Board hearing, the Veteran reiterated that he began to experience hearing loss and tinnitus in service, with symptoms getting worse over time.

Tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss are considered organic diseases of the nervous system, and as such are chronic diseases enumerated under 38 U.S.C. § 1101.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; Memorandum, Characterization of High Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Under Secretary for Health, October 4, 1995; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.  A nexus between a current disability and an in-service injury or event may be established by evidence of continuity of symptomatology, if the condition is a chronic disease enumerated under 38 U.S.C. § 1101.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338-40 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Tinnitus and hearing loss are conditions observable by the senses.  Therefore, the Veteran is competent to identify tinnitus and hearing loss symptoms, as well as any continuity of symptomatology.  See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002).

In this case, VA has conceded acoustic trauma during service, and the Veteran has submitted competent and credible evidence of hearing loss and tinnitus symptoms since service.  Furthermore, the Veteran has submitted a positive medical opinion from his treating physician.  While a negative VA medical opinion is of record, this opinion is inadequate, as it is not supported by a medical rationale.  

(Continued on the next page)

?

As there is evidence of continuity of symptoms since service, the Board presumes that the Veteran's diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were incurred in service.  Service connection on a presumptive basis is therefore granted.

 

 

Paul Sorisio

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	P. López, 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.