HEARING LOSS

EMILY TAMLYN · 2026 · Case ID: A26040534

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from January 1981 to September 1984, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran claims his hearing loss is due to hazardous noise exposure as a heavy vehicle operator and expert rifleman during service. The record shows a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, and the Board found the Veteran's MOS consistent with noise exposure. Service treatment records did not document hearing loss during service, nor did they show complaints or treatment for hearing issues. However, audiometer results from enlistment, during service, and at separation showed no significant threshold shift. A March 2014 VA examination noted mild to moderate hearing loss and reported noise exposure, but the examiner's nexus opinion was negative regarding service connection due to lack of objective evidence. A subsequent January 2025 VA examination also confirmed bilateral hearing loss but provided a negative nexus opinion, citing the Institute of Medicine report on delayed-onset hearing loss and lack of in-service findings. The Board found both VA opinions inadequate, noting the January 2025 opinion's reliance on the IOM report without addressing contradictory statements and the August 2022 opinion's failure to reconcile post-service onset with conceded in-service noise exposure. The Board found the Veteran competent and credible in reporting symptoms and observing hearing difficulties. Given the conflicting evidence and inadequate VA opinions, the Board found the evidence at least in approximate balance, resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss was granted.

Rationale

Current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss confirmed by VA exams.; Veteran's MOS as heavy vehicle operator consistent with noise exposure.; In-service noise exposure reported by Veteran.; Inadequate VA opinions due to reliance on IOM report and lack of meaningful reconciliation.; Evidence found to be in approximate balance.; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250317-526144

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040534
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250317-526144
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

1. Noise exposure is consistent with the circumstances of the Veteran's service.

2. Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to in-service noise exposure.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

With resolution of reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served in the United States Marine Corps on Active Duty from January 1981 to September 1984 with Reserve service.

In June 2022, the Veteran submitted a claim for service connection of bilateral hearing loss. See June 2022 VA Form 21-526EZ. In January 2024, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the claim for service connection. See January 2024 Rating Decision. The Veteran timely filed a Decision Review Request: Higher Level Review in August 2024. See August 2024 VA Form 20-0996. The AOJ identified a duty to assist error in the development of the claim for service connection of bilateral hearing loss in December 2024. See December 2024 Rating Decision. Following further development, the AOJ denied the claim for service connection in January 2025 after obtaining an additional VA examination and medical opinion. See January 2025 Rating Decision.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the January 2025 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This decision constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In the March 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 March 2025 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 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

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in-service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in-service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection for certain chronic diseases, including sensorineural hearing loss, may be presumed if they are manifested to a compensable degree within one year following the date of separation from active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

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 diagnosis including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required where the condition noted during service is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or when the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in-service is not adequately supported then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after discharge from service is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). But to establish entitlement to service connection based on continuity of symptomatology, the claimant must have one of the "chronic" diseases specifically enumerated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (addressing lay evidence as potentially competent to support presence of disability even where not corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis or etiology when (1) a lay person is competent to identify a medical condition; (2) the lay person is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss

The Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss is the result of his military service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his current bilateral hearing loss is due to hazardous noise exposure from serving as a heavy vehicle operator in service. See August 2025 Informal Hearing Presentation.

Service connection may not be established for disability due to impaired hearing unless the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

The record reflects that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. Specifically, the Veteran's current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss was confirmed at a VA examination in August 2022. See August 2022 VA Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire. Additionally, the AOJ made the favorable finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss in a January 2024 rating decision. See January 2024 Rating Decision. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Accordingly, the first element of service connection is met. See Shedden, 381 F.3d at 1163.

Additionally, the Veteran's Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is noted as Heavy Vehicle Operator. Based on the Veteran's MOS, the AOJ made the favorable finding that the Veteran's service as a heavy vehicle operator is consistent with exposure to hazardous noise. See January 2024 Rating Decision. The Board is bound by this favorable
a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss in a January 2024 rating decision. See January 2024 Rating Decision. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Accordingly, the first element of service connection is met. See Shedden, 381 F.3d at 1163.

Additionally, the Veteran's Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is noted as Heavy Vehicle Operator. Based on the Veteran's MOS, the AOJ made the favorable finding that the Veteran's service as a heavy vehicle operator is consistent with exposure to hazardous noise. See January 2024 Rating Decision. The Board is bound by this favorable finding and the second element of service connection is satisfied. See Shedden, 381 F.3d at 1163; see also 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

Thus, this case turns on whether the final element of service connection, a nexus to service, is met. Turning to the record, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) reveal that the Veteran did not have a record of hearing loss at the time of enlistment. Nor do the service treatment records demonstrate that the Veteran complained of or was treated for hearing loss while in-service.

Specifically, the Veteran's January 1981 enlistment examination reveals the following audiometer results:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 10 5 5 15

LEFT 5 5 5 0

The Veteran's July 1984 discharge examination reveals the following audiometer results:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 5 10 10 10

LEFT 10 5 5 5

An October 1983 reference audiogram examination during service reveals the following results:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 15 10 0 10 10

LEFT 15 15 10 10 0

Additionally, the Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in March 2014 where he reported "occasional difficulty understanding speech when other people are talking." See March 2014 Audiology Consult Note. At this examination, the Veteran also reported noise exposure during service to include gunfire and exposure to jet runway. Id. Test results at the exam indicated mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss, and that the Veteran was a borderline candidate for amplification at the time. Id.

The Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in August 2022, which confirmed that he has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The examiner rendered an etiological opinion based on any lack of significant threshold shift in the Veteran's hearing during his active military service. Further, the examiner confirmed the Veteran's MOS had a "moderate probability" of noise exposure and that the Veteran reported hazardous noise exposure without consistent use of hearing protection during service, but that ultimately, the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is less likely than not attributable to service due to insufficient objective evidence in support of the Veteran's current hearing loss being the result of military noise exposure. See August 2022 VA Examination. The Board finds it relevant to note that this examiner, while finding that the Veteran's hearing loss is not the result of military noise exposure, did opine following the same examination, that the Veteran's tinnitus is the result of weapons training during service. Id.

The Veteran underwent another VA audiological examination in January 2025 prior to the appeal at issue here. That examination again confirmed a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss but resulted in a negative nexus opinion. See January 2025 VA Examination. Specifically, the examiner relied upon an Institute of Medicine Report from 2005 which found that prolonged delay in the onset of noise-induced hearing loss was unlikely. Id. The examiner further opined that the Veteran's hearing loss is less likely than not related to military noise exposure given that there was no significant shift in hearing levels during military service and no record of complaint or treatment in the service treatment records. Id. This examiner also opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is a result of military noise exposure. See January 2025 VA Examination.

The Veteran, through his representative, testified in a brief submitted in August 2025 that he was a heavy vehicle operator in service surrounded by extremely hazardous noise on a regular basis and also served as an expert rifleman, requiring numerous trips to the firing range. See August 2025 Appellate Brief. Based on this
noise-induced hearing loss was unlikely. Id. The examiner further opined that the Veteran's hearing loss is less likely than not related to military noise exposure given that there was no significant shift in hearing levels during military service and no record of complaint or treatment in the service treatment records. Id. This examiner also opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is a result of military noise exposure. See January 2025 VA Examination.

The Veteran, through his representative, testified in a brief submitted in August 2025 that he was a heavy vehicle operator in service surrounded by extremely hazardous noise on a regular basis and also served as an expert rifleman, requiring numerous trips to the firing range. See August 2025 Appellate Brief. Based on this exposure, the Veteran argues that the noise exposure in service over time resulted in hearing degradation. Id. Additionally, the Veteran argues that he was not offered an outgoing hearing test upon separation from the Reserves, and that he should be given the benefit of the doubt based on the lack of evidence between induction to separation. Id.

The Board has been charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000). In this case, the Board finds the Veteran is competent to report regarding the symptoms he experienced, and the Board finds his statements credible. See also Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465; Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1372.

Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims highlighted the apparently contradictory findings regarding delayed-onset hearing loss in the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report. See McCray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 243 (Vet. App. 2019). Here, the January 2025 VA medical opinion suggested, in part, that there is no sufficient scientific basis for the existence of delayed-onset hearing loss. However, the IOM report also indicates that "[t]here is not sufficient evidence from longitudinal studies in laboratory animals or humans to determine whether permanent noise-induced hearing loss can develop much later in one's lifetime, long after the cessation of that noise exposure" and that "definitive studies to address this issue have not been performed." Any future opinion predicated on the IOM reports' findings regarding delayed onset hearing loss must address these inconsistencies.

The Board finds the January 2025 VA medical opinion inadequate for adjudication purposes. Specifically, it is presumed that the Veteran was exposed to military noise based on the Veteran's MOS as a heavy vehicle operator. The January 2025 opinion noted the noise exposure especially but also seemingly pointed to a lack of evidence in the file as negative evidence, which the Board may not rely upon as substantive negative evidence. Moreover, the examiner alluded to the IOM report but did not address the qualifying or contradictory statements highlighted by the Court in McCray v. Wilkie. See 31 Vet. App. at 243. As the opinion is inadequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection.

The Board also finds the August 2022 VA medical opinion inadequate for adjudication purposes. Specifically, the examiner also noted the noise exposure the Veteran experienced while in service but based their negative nexus opinion on the absence of significant threshold shifts during service and the lack of documented hearing loss at separation, which is pointing to a lack of evidence in the file as negative evidence and not allowed. The examiner also did not meaningfully address the Veteran's competent reports that his hearing difficulties were first noticed after service and were observed by families and friends, nor did the examiner reconcile whether such a post-service onset is medically consistent with the conceded in-service noise exposure. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). As the opinion is also inadequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection.

The Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandre
Vet. App. 23 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). As the opinion is also inadequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection.

The Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1372; Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify reduced hearing acuity and report on the chronicity of symptomatology since active service.

Consequently, the Board finds that the Veteran has sustained acoustic trauma due to military noise exposure while on active service in the military. The Veteran's MOS as a heavy vehicle operator and service as an expert rifleman both indicate that it was highly probable that he had hazardous noise exposure while in-service. The Veteran also reported experiencing no post-service noise exposure. Further, the Veteran is competent to report experiencing and observing these symptoms. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-77. These statements are consistent with the circumstances of his service, and the Board finds the Veteran's statements to be probative and credible. While there are two VA medical opinions of record against the claim, both opinions are inadequate and of limited probative value.

(Continued on the next page)

The Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is at least in approximate balance. Reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

EMILY TAMLYN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Pieper, C.

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer