Back to BVA DecisionsGRANTEDSpecial Benefit NO SPECIAL BENEFIT Docket No. 251002-594175
HEARING LOSS
DONNIE R. HACHEY · 2026 · Case ID: A26040484
Summary
The veteran, who served from September 1963 to September 1965, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the veteran's testimony, his wife's testimony, a VA examination from January 2025, and a private medical examination from January 2025. The veteran testified that his hearing loss began in service and continued, with no significant noise exposure after service. His wife corroborated his hearing difficulties. The VA examination confirmed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, meeting VA criteria. The Board noted the AOJ conceded in-service acoustic noise trauma due to the veteran's MOS and a current diagnosis of tinnitus. The Board found the veteran's testimony competent and credible, and the private medical opinion from Dr. H. linking hearing loss to noise exposure highly probative. Based on evidence of in-service injury, current diagnosis, and nexus, service connection for bilateral hearing loss was granted. For tinnitus, the Board found the veteran's credible testimony of in-service onset and continuity, coupled with the AOJ's concession of in-service acoustic noise trauma and a current diagnosis, sufficient for service connection. Therefore, service connection for both bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was granted.
Rationale
Evidence of in-service acoustic noise trauma conceded by AOJ; Current diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss meets VA criteria; Veteran's testimony regarding hearing loss since service found competent and credible; Private medical opinion from Dr. H. provided positive nexus to noise exposure
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26040484 Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26 DOCKET NO. 251002-594175 DATE: April 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran experienced acoustic noise trauma in service and experienced hearing loss in and since service. 2. The Veteran's symptoms of tinnitus began in service and continued to the present. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38?U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1131, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1963 to September 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a February 2025 decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction. The Veteran requested a higher-level review, and the Veteran's claims were again denied in October 2025. In October 2025, the Veteran filed a VA Form 10182. In the October 2, 2025, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on January 21, 2026. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2025 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, 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, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review 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. 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. Service Connection Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7?Vet. App.?498, 506 (1995).?? Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after military discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to the period of military service, establishes that the disease was incurred during the active military service. 38?U.S.C. §?1113(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(d).?? Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends that he should be service connected for bilateral hearing loss.? Sensorineural hearing loss is a "chronic disease" listed under 38?C.F.R. §?3.309(a); therefore, the presumptive service connection provisions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for service connection based on "chronic" symptoms in service and "continuous" symptoms since service are applicable. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir 38?U.S.C. §?1113(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(d).?? Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends that he should be service connected for bilateral hearing loss.? Sensorineural hearing loss is a "chronic disease" listed under 38?C.F.R. §?3.309(a); therefore, the presumptive service connection provisions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for service connection based on "chronic" symptoms in service and "continuous" symptoms since service are applicable. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). With a chronic disease shown in service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection. 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b).?? For VA purposes, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels (dB) or greater, the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz are 26 dB or greater, or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38?C.F.R. §?3.385.?? In January 2025, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner noted that the Veteran does have a current diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The Veteran's auditory examination results were as follows: January 2025 HERTZ ? 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg RIGHT 40 65 90 100 73.75 LEFT 65 75 80 90 77.5 The Board finds that the Veteran does meet the requirements for a hearing disability for VA purposes as the Veteran has auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, Hz at 26 dB or greater. The Board notes that the AOJ has previously conceded that the Veteran did experience in service acoustic noise trauma due to his military occupational specialty. In January 2026, the Veteran appeared and testified before the Board. The Veteran testified regarding his hearing loss which he alleged he experienced since service. The Veteran testified that he did not have any significant noise exposure after service. The Veteran's wife also testified that she observed the Veteran showing signs of difficulty hearing. The Board notes that in a private medical examination, dated January 2025, Dr. H. provided a positive opinion that links the Veteran's hearing loss to noise exposure. The Board finds the Veteran's testimony to be competent and credible. The Board also finds that the January 2025 positive nexus opinion from Dr. H is highly probative. The Board finds that there is evidence of an in-service injury, a current diagnosis, and a nexus between the injury and diagnosis. Therefore, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran contends that he should be service connected for tinnitus. In January 2026, the Veteran appeared and provided credible testimony before the Board that his symptoms of tinnitus began in service. The Veteran further testified that the symptoms continued since service. The Board notes that the AOJ has previously conceded in service acoustic noise trauma due to the Veteran's military occupational specialty. The Board further notes that the AOJ did previously concede that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. Because tinnitus is a condition capable of lay observation, and because the Veteran has credibly indicated that his tinnitus began in service and continued to the present, service connection for tinnitus is warranted and the appeal is granted. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Counsel, H. Hailu 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. tinnitus is a condition capable of lay observation, and because the Veteran has credibly indicated that his tinnitus began in service and continued to the present, service connection for tinnitus is warranted and the appeal is granted. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Counsel, H. Hailu 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.