HEARING LOSS

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from September 1953 to September 1955, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) made favorable findings that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and that his infantry MOS involved a high probability of hazardous noise exposure. The Board acknowledged these findings and focused on the nexus between the current hearing loss and service. Service treatment records from separation in September 1955 showed normal whispered voice testing and no complaints of hearing difficulty. The Veteran's first complaints and diagnosis of hearing loss occurred decades after service, with reported onset in the 1970s or more recently. Multiple VA examinations (September 2012, October 2017, August 2025) consistently opined that the bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to service. The examiners cited the absence of in-service complaints or diagnosis, the normal separation test, the long post-service gap, alternative explanations like aging and a benign brain tumor (for left ear), and the Veteran's own reports of later onset. While the Board acknowledged conceded hazardous noise exposure and the Veteran's infantry MOS, it found the medical opinions probative and persuasive, weighing against a service connection. The Board also noted that while tinnitus was granted service connection, this did not establish service connection for hearing loss, and the August 2025 examiner provided a negative nexus for tinnitus as well. The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

Rationale

Service treatment records negative for hearing loss complaints or diagnosis during service or at separation.; Multiple VA examinations provided negative nexus opinions, citing long post-service gap, alternative explanations (aging, tumor), and Veteran's reported later onset.; Board found VA opinions probative and persuasive, weighing against causal relationship to service.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040595
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 251114-595619
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability, diagnosed decades after service, is not shown to be etiologically related to service, to include conceded military noise (acoustic trauma) exposure during active service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral ear hearing loss disability are not met.? 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1953 to September 1955.

As pertinent here, the Board denied the Veteran's claim in March 2020.  He filed a new claim in February 2024, and a March 2024 rating decision declined readjudication of the claim, finding that new and relevant evidence was not received.

The Veteran submitted an April 2024 VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application, and an April 2024 rating decision reconsidered and denied the claim.  The Veteran submitted another VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application in January 2025, an August 2025 examination and opinion were obtained, and a September 2025 rating decision denied readjudicating the claim.  The Board acknowledges that in the September 2025 rating decision on appeal, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) addressed the merits of the claim.  This constitutes a reconsideration of the claim, and the Board will not disturb the implicit favorable finding that new and relevant evidence was received.  See 38 C.F.R. §?3.104(c). 

The Board acknowledges the recent United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) decision in Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024) which found that under 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c)(2), the Board generally may not decide an appeal before the deadline for requesting an AMA docket switch has elapsed.  38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c) allows appellants to switch AMA dockets by completing and submitting a new VA Form 10182 within 60 days from when the Board receives the original VA Form 10182, or one year from the date the AOJ mails notice of the decision on appeal, whichever is later, unless (1) an appellant has already submitted evidence or testimony as described in 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302 and 20.303, or (2) the appellant or representative has requested a waiver of the ability to request to switch dockets during this timeframe.  See also Williams, 37 Vet. App. 305.  

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's case has been advanced on the docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c).  The Board finds such constitutes an implicit waiver of the Veteran's ability to request a docket switch, which would otherwise require the Board to hold the appeal open until one year following the September 2025 decision in this case.  Therefore, the Board finds that adjudication of this claim is proper and without prejudice to the Veteran.  

Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss 

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service.? 38?U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(a).? Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service.? 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(d).? 

Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.? Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Sensorineural bilateral hearing loss is an enumerated "chronic disease" listed under 38?C.F.R. §?3.309(a); therefore, the presumptive provisions of
 was incurred in service.? 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(d).? 

Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.? Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Sensorineural bilateral hearing loss is an enumerated "chronic disease" listed under 38?C.F.R. §?3.309(a); therefore, the presumptive provisions of 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b) for "chronic" in-service symptoms and "continuous" post-service symptoms apply.? Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).? For a showing of a chronic disease in service, the mere use of the word chronic will not suffice; rather, there is a required combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings.? 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b).? Continuity of symptomatology after service is required where a condition noted during service is not, in fact, chronic, or where a diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned.? Id.? The presumptive service connection provisions based on "chronic" in-service symptoms and "continuity of symptomatology" after service under 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b) have been interpreted as an alternative to service connection only for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38?C.F.R. §?3.309(a).? See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that the "chronic" in service and "continuous" post-service symptom presumptive provisions of 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b) only apply to "chronic" diseases at 3.309(a)).? 

If not manifest during service, where a veteran served continuously for 90 days or more during a period of war, or during peacetime service after December 31, 1946, and the 'chronic' disease became manifest to a degree of 10 percent within 1 year from date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service.? 38?C.F.R. §?3.307.? 

The Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.? Kahana v. Shinseki, 24?Vet. App.?428, 433 (2011).? This includes weighing the credibility and probative value of lay evidence against the remaining evidence of record.? See King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Kahana, 24?Vet. App.?at 433-34.? 

A veteran bears the evidentiary burden to establish all elements of a service connection claim, including the nexus requirement.? Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2009).? 

VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a claimant prevailing in either event.? 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.102.? The claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an "approximate" (meaning nearly equal) balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material determination.? See?Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391 (2021); Ortiz?v.?Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Evidence and Analysis

The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  He contends that his hearing loss is related to hazardous noise exposure during active service.

The AOJ has made favorable findings that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and that his MOS of infantryman had a high probability of hazardous noise exposure.  The Board is bound by these favorable findings.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104(b)(4), 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801
 v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391 (2021); Ortiz?v.?Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Evidence and Analysis

The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  He contends that his hearing loss is related to hazardous noise exposure during active service.

The AOJ has made favorable findings that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and that his MOS of infantryman had a high probability of hazardous noise exposure.  The Board is bound by these favorable findings.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104(b)(4), 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a).  Thus, the remaining question is whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to service.

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1953 to September 1955.  Service treatment records do not show complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of hearing loss during service.  The September 1955 separation examination documented normal whispered voice testing of 15/15 bilaterally.  The Board acknowledges that whispered voice testing is not frequency specific and is of limited value in determining whether high frequency hearing loss was present.  However, the separation examination nevertheless does not document any hearing defect, and the service treatment records contain no complaints of hearing difficulty.

Hearing loss complaints and diagnosis are not shown until many decades after separation from active service.  During the September 2012 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his left ear hearing loss began three to four years earlier, when he was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor.  The September 2012 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to active service.  The examiner reasoned that there was no evidence of hearing loss during service or soon after service, the separation whispered voice test was normal, the current examination confirmed hearing loss 57 years after service, the Veteran reported left ear hearing loss beginning only several years earlier in connection with a benign brain tumor, and the right ear hearing loss was likely due to the normal aging process.

The Veteran underwent another VA examination in October 2017.  The examiner again provided a negative nexus opinion.  The examiner acknowledged that medical literature indicates exposure to high intensity noise can cause hearing loss but explained that no retroactive hearing effects are expected years after exposure to such noise.  The examiner attributed the Veteran's hearing loss to presbycusis and/or the natural aging process. 

At the August 2025 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his hearing loss began "around the 70s."  He reported that his hearing loss had progressed and worsened over time.  The examiner noted the Veteran's infantry MOS, his high probability of hazardous noise exposure, his Korea Service Medal, and his report that he fired M1, .45 m, carbine, and 105 mm weaponry during service.  The examiner also noted that the Veteran did not use hearing protection during service.  The examiner further considered the Veteran's post-service noise history, including Reserve service for 14 years, agricultural work for three years, and work as a clerk for 30 years.

The August 2025 examiner opined that the Veteran's right and left ear hearing loss were less likely than not caused by or the result of an event in military service.  The examiner acknowledged that the only available separation hearing test was a whispered voice test and that such testing is not frequency specific.  The examiner further stated that a temporary threshold shift during service could not be confirmed or denied based on the available testing.  However, the examiner explained that there were no complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for hearing loss during service, at separation, or shortly after separation, and that hearing loss was not shown until 2012, more than 55 years after separation from active duty.  The examiner also relied on the Veteran's own report during the examination that his hearing loss began many years after separation.  Based on these facts, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to service.  

The Board first considers whether service connection is warranted on a presumptive basis for chronic disease.  However, the evidence does not show that hearing loss was chronic in service, manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation, or was continuous since service.  The Veteran separated from active duty in September 1955, and hearing loss was not diagnosed for many decades thereafter.  Moreover, by his own reports at the August 2025 examination, hearing loss began around the 1970s, many years after separation from active service.  Accordingly, service connection is not warranted on a presumptive basis.

The Board next considers whether service connection is warranted on a direct basis.  The Board finds the September 2012, October 2017, and August 
 service connection is warranted on a presumptive basis for chronic disease.  However, the evidence does not show that hearing loss was chronic in service, manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation, or was continuous since service.  The Veteran separated from active duty in September 1955, and hearing loss was not diagnosed for many decades thereafter.  Moreover, by his own reports at the August 2025 examination, hearing loss began around the 1970s, many years after separation from active service.  Accordingly, service connection is not warranted on a presumptive basis.

The Board next considers whether service connection is warranted on a direct basis.  The Board finds the September 2012, October 2017, and August 2025 VA opinions probative.  Collectively, the opinions considered the Veteran's current hearing loss, his service history, the absence of documented hearing loss or hearing complaints during service or for decades thereafter, his reported post-service onset, and alternative explanations including aging and, with respect to the left ear, the history of a benign brain tumor.  The August 2025 opinion is especially probative because the examiner specifically acknowledged the conceded hazardous noise exposure, the Veteran's infantry duties, the lack of hearing protection, and the limited value of the whispered voice test, but nevertheless, explained why the evidence did not support a nexus to active service in light of the long post-service gap and the Veteran's own reported onset many years after separation.  See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008).

The Board does not interpret the VA examiners' reliance on the absence of documented hearing loss at separation or for many years thereafter as an impermissible conclusion that normal hearing at separation legally bars service connection.  Rather, the opinions reflect medical judgments that, in this Veteran's specific case, the absence of documented hearing complaints or findings during service or for decades thereafter, together with the Veteran's own reports of onset decades later, weighs against a causal relationship between the current hearing loss and in-service noise exposure.

The Board acknowledges that service connection has been awarded for tinnitus based on the Veteran's conceded in-service exposure.  However, the August 2025 examiner provided a negative nexus regarding tinnitus, and in any event, the grant of service connection for tinnitus, does not, by itself, establish that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is also related to service.  Tinnitus and hearing loss are separate disabilities, and the question before the Board is whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to service.  Here, the competent medical evidence addressing that question weighs against the claim.

The Veteran is competent to report his perception of decreased hearing.  However, he has not asserted that his hearing loss began during active service or within one year after separation.  Instead, at the August 2025 VA examination, he reported onset around the 1970s, many years after his September 1955 separation from active duty, and in 2012 reported that his September 2012 examination, he reported that the left ear hearing loss began only three or four years earlier.  Determining whether current sensorineural hearing loss is causally related to noise exposure decades earlier is a complex medical question requiring specialized audiological expertise.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  The Board therefore affords greater probative weight to the VA medical opinions than to any general lay assertion that current hearing loss is related to service.  There is no medical opinion to the contrary.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the most probative evidence shows that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss did not have its onset during service or within one year of separation, has not been continuous since service, and is not otherwise related to the established in-service noise exposure.  As the evidence is persuasively against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim must be denied.

 

 

S. B. MAYS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Yaffe, 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.