HEARING LOSS

STEVEN D. REISS · 2026 · Case ID: A26040749

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from September 2018 to September 2022, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, muscle pain/spasms, and bilateral hip disability, as well as the grant of service connection for right ankle disability, lumbar spine disability, plantar fasciitis, headaches, erectile dysfunction, and asthma. The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding that the veteran's hearing did not meet the criteria for a disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, despite acknowledging acoustic trauma and tinnitus. For the right ankle and lumbar spine claims, the Board granted service connection, noting that while service treatment records were negative, the conditions were diagnosed shortly after service separation and no evidence contradicted a nexus to service. Service connection for plantar fasciitis was granted, with the Board finding the VA opinions inadequate and applying the benefit of the doubt doctrine due to conflicting evidence and the presumption of sound condition upon entry. Headaches and erectile dysfunction were granted, with the Board finding the evidence in approximate balance, despite negative service treatment records and unfavorable VA opinions, due to the conditions appearing shortly after service. Asthma was granted, with the Board finding the evidence linked asthma to service despite negative service treatment records and unfavorable VA opinions, noting the diagnosis shortly after service and credible lay evidence. Muscle pain/spasms and bilateral hip disability were denied due to a lack of objective findings of disability or functional impairment to earning capacity, and the veteran's lack of competence to diagnose the conditions.

Rationale

No objective audiometric findings in post-service records.; Veteran's hearing loss does not meet criteria in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.; Veteran's testimony, while credible, is not competent to establish diagnosis for VA purposes.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250613-557573

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040749
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250613-557573
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

Service connection for right ankle disability, diagnosed as right ankle sprain, is granted.

Service connection for lumbar spine disability, diagnosed as lumbar strain, is granted.

Service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is granted.

Service connection for headaches is granted.

Service connection for erectile dysfunction is granted.

Service connection for asthma is granted.

Service connection for muscle pain/spasms is denied.

Service connection for a bilateral hip disability is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran does not have bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes.

2. The Veteran's right ankle disability, lumbar spine disability, plantar fasciitis, headaches, asthma, and erectile dysfunction had their onset in service.

3. The Veteran does not have a muscle pain/spasm disability or bilateral hip disability or functional impairment to earning capacity thereof.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.385.

2. The criteria for service connection for right ankle disability, diagnosis as right ankle strain, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for lumbar spine disability, diagnosed as lumbar strain, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for plantar fasciitis are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for headaches are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for erectile dysfunction are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

7. The criteria for service connection for asthma are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

8. The criteria for service connection for muscle pain/spasms are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

9. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral hip disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in United States Marine Corps from September 2018 to September 2022.

In the June 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, with regard to all of the claims for service connection but plantar fasciitis, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of notice of the February 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. With regard to the claim for service connection for plantar fascitis, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of notice of the March 2025 special review decision. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F
.

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 denied 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.

The Board interprets the Veteran's statements as reflecting an intent to have this matter reviewed in an expeditious manner, which the Board finds to be an implicit waiver of the Veteran's right to change Board dockets under Williams v. McDonough, 37?Vet. App.?305 (2024).

1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service, when he was exposed to loud diesel engine generators.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 U.S.C. § 3.303. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an 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 current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999).

For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran experienced acoustic trauma during his service, and indeed, VA has established service connection for the Veteran's tinnitus.

The Board finds, however, the evidence does not show that he has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss that meets the above criteria to be considered a disability for VA purposes. Specifically, such was not shown on May 2023 VA examination, or in the post-service treatment records during the appeal period.

Without evidence of hearing loss that satisfies the criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, the Board cannot grant service connection because the Veteran's hearing loss does not constitute a hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 178-80 (2007) (specifically upholding the validity of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 to define hearing loss for VA compensation purposes).

Finally, while the Veteran is competent to report having observing a decline in his hearing acuity in and since service, and in its role as a finder of fact, the Board finds the Veteran's account credible, he is not competent to report that he has hearing loss for VA disability compensation purposes, which can only be demonstrated by objective audiometric findings. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir
purposes. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 178-80 (2007) (specifically upholding the validity of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 to define hearing loss for VA compensation purposes).

In sum, the evidence reflects that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss does not constitute a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes. Thus, the Board has no discretion and must deny the claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. See Palczewski, 21 Vet. App. at 179.

2. Service connection for a right ankle disability is granted.

3. Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is granted.

The Veteran contends that his right ankle disability, diagnosed as a right ankle sprain, and his lumbar spine disability, diagnosed as a lumbar strain, began in service and are related to excessive hiking, physical training, and working on seven-ton trucks.

The Board notes that the service treatment records are negative for reports of right ankle pain or lumbar pain or problems.

However, the Board also notes that when the Veteran was seen on VA examinations in 2023 and diagnosed with the above disabilities, such was just one year following service separation. Therefore, it makes logical sense that these disabilities began while he was in service, as there is no indication in the record of injuries or events that occurred directly after service to have caused these disabilities. Significantly, there are no medical opinions or evidence of record to find against a nexus to service. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty").

Therefore, as his right ankle disability and lumbar spine disability clearly had their onset during his active service, and have not resolved since service, service connection is warranted.

4. Service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is granted.

The Veteran contends that since service, when he completed heavy hiking especially, he has suffered from bilateral foot pain.

Service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was diagnosed with' congenital pes planus' in January 2022 when he was receiving treatment for knee pain.

On May 2023 VA examination, he was diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis. In November 2023, a VA examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that his plantar fasciitis was related to his service, as there was no objective evidence of complaints or treatment for his condition in service, and there was no evidence of specific activities which would be anticipated to cause the condition. The examiner further stated that the Veteran's current plantar fasciitis fell within the natural progression of the disease.

In October 2024, another VA opinion was obtained. The VA examiner first stated that the Veteran's plantar fasciitis clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service and was clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by his service. Then, however, the examiner stated that he was first diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis one year after service, and not while he was in service, or prior to service. The examiner stated that there was no evidence that his plantar fasciitis was related to treatment for pes planus in service. The examiner surmised that the diagnosis of pes planus was an incidental finding made in 2022.

The Board finds that neither of these opinions are adequate. The May 2023 VA opinion is factually incorrect when it stated that there was no evidence of specific activities that would cause plantar fasciitis, when the Veteran provided multiple examples of physical activities that would reasonably cause or aggravate this condition. The Board then finds that the October 2024 VA opinion is simply contradictory with itself, as shown above, and provides no rationale as to how his diagnosed pes planus did not later cause or aggravate his plantar fasciitis.

First, a veteran is presumed to be in sound condition when he entered into military service, except for conditions noted at service entrance. 38 U.S.C. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (b). Here, there is no notation that the Veteran suffered from plant
that there was no evidence of specific activities that would cause plantar fasciitis, when the Veteran provided multiple examples of physical activities that would reasonably cause or aggravate this condition. The Board then finds that the October 2024 VA opinion is simply contradictory with itself, as shown above, and provides no rationale as to how his diagnosed pes planus did not later cause or aggravate his plantar fasciitis.

First, a veteran is presumed to be in sound condition when he entered into military service, except for conditions noted at service entrance. 38 U.S.C. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (b). Here, there is no notation that the Veteran suffered from plantar fasciitis upon entry into service. Therefore, he is considered to have been in sound condition upon entrance into service.

In a case where there is no preexisting condition noted upon entry into service, the Veteran is presumed to have entered service in sound condition, and the burden falls to the government to demonstrate by clear and unmistakable evidence that (a) the condition preexisted service and (b) the preexisting condition was not aggravated by service. See Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Davis v. Principi, 276 F.3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 234 (2012); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1111 (presumption of sound condition). Here again, however, while the Veteran was shown to have 'congenital pes planus', he was not shown to have pre-existing plantar fasciitis in service, and there certainly is no clear and unmistakable evidence that he had plantar fasciitis prior to service. Thus, he was in sound condition upon entry into service.

To that extent, similarly to the above granted claims, the Veteran was diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis within one year following service separation.

In addition, he has provided credible and competent reports of bilateral foot pain that began in service after completing certain foot-heavy strenuous activities. See Flynn, supra. Therefore, despite whether he was shown to have congenital pes planus in service, the evidence shows that he was diagnosed as having bilateral plantar fasciitis soon after separation from service. As such, because his foot pain began in service and has now been diagnosed as plantar fasciitis, regardless of whether the cause of such was most likely activities in service, service connection is warranted because the disability had its onset while the Veteran was on active duty.

Because the competent and credible evidence is at least approximately balanced, and benefit of the doubt doctrine applies, service connection for plantar fasciitis is warranted.

5. Service connection for headaches is granted.

6. Service connection for erectile dysfunction is granted.

The Veteran contends that his has been experiencing headaches and erectile dysfunction since service.

The Board notes that the service treatment records are negative for indication of headaches and erectile dysfunction.

On May 2023 VA examinations, the Veteran was diagnosed as having both tension headaches and erectile dysfunction. With both disabilities, he reported the onset while he was in service and that they had stayed the same.

In October 2023, a VA examiner concluded that both the Veteran's headaches and erectile dysfunction were unrelated to his TERA in service. His TERA was identified as exposure to fuels, oils, and lubricants as an engineer equipment technician. The examiner also found no indication of these disabilities in the service treatment records.

Here again, however, given that the Veteran was shown to suffer from both tension headaches and erectile dysfunction just one year following service separation, and absent any indication of a supervening event that would have caused these conditions after service separation, the Board finds that the approximate balance of evidence weighs in the Veteran's favor. Therefore, service connection for headaches and erectile dysfunction is warranted. See Flynn, supra; See Lynch, supra.

7. Service connection for asthma is granted.

The Veteran contends that his asthma is related to his service, specifically to the inhalation of oil and exhaust fumes while working as a mechanic.

The Board notes that the service treatment records do not reflect asthma or symptoms of asthma symptoms.

However, since separating from service, the Veteran has reported ongoing shortness of breath that began while in service. He was diagnosed as having asthma on March 2023 VA examination.

In October 2023, a VA examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's asthma was related to service, to include TERA, because there was no diagnosis.

In February 2025, a new VA opinion was obtained. The
supra.

7. Service connection for asthma is granted.

The Veteran contends that his asthma is related to his service, specifically to the inhalation of oil and exhaust fumes while working as a mechanic.

The Board notes that the service treatment records do not reflect asthma or symptoms of asthma symptoms.

However, since separating from service, the Veteran has reported ongoing shortness of breath that began while in service. He was diagnosed as having asthma on March 2023 VA examination.

In October 2023, a VA examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's asthma was related to service, to include TERA, because there was no diagnosis.

In February 2025, a new VA opinion was obtained. The examiner found that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's asthma was related to TERA, pointing to other causes of asthma to include the Veteran's vaping history and stress. The examiner noted that asthma could be caused by inhaled irritants, but did not list the Veteran's exposure to oils, fumes, and lubricants as a potential cause of asthma.

The Board has considered these two negative VA opinions, but finds that they do not negate the fact that the Veteran was diagnosed as having asthma just one year following service separation, without any indication of a supervening event that would have caused asthma after service separation.

In light of the foregoing, given the lay and medical evidence of record, the Board finds that the approximate balance of the evidence links asthma to service. Accordingly, service connection for headaches and erectile dysfunction, is warranted. See Flynn, supra; See Lynch, supra.

8. Service connection for muscle pain/spasms is denied.

With regard to the Veteran's claim for service connection for muscle pain/spasms, however, the Board finds that there is no current disability or functional impairment to earning capacity.

In Saunders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that "pain in the absence of a presently-diagnosed condition can cause functional impairment," which may qualify as a "disability" for VA compensation purposes. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit in Saunders, however, cautioned against the notion that "a veteran could demonstrate service connection simply by asserting subjective pain" because, to establish that a disability is present, the veteran "will need to show that... pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity." Id. at 1367-68. "Functional impairment," the Federal Circuit noted, is defined as the inability of the body or a constituent part of it "'to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment.'" Id. at 1363 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 4.10).

In addition, citing Saunders, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held in Wait v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 8, 17 (2020) that "to establish the presence of a disability pursuant to Saunders, there must be competent evidence specific to the claimant tending to show that his or her impairment rises to a level to affect earning capacity, which may include showing manifestations of a similar severity, frequency, and duration as those VA has determined by regulation would cause impaired earning capacity in an average person."

Here, the Veteran reports that he experiences random muscle spasms/twitches mostly affecting right arm and right leg. On May 2023 VA examination, however, no objective findings of a muscle disability was established.

The record does not otherwise demonstrate the presence of a muscle disability or muscular symptoms that interfere with earning capacity. In fact, the Veteran has not reported such, and none was found on VA examination.

The Board has considered the Veteran's report that he suffers from a disability manifested by muscle twitches/spasms. However, the Veteran is not competent to diagnose such a disability as this requires medical expertise. When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77.

Here, while the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of muscle twitching and spasms, he is not competent to determine that such is caused by a disability. And, importantly, there is no indication in the record of a disability or of functional impairment to earning capacity.

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
type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77.

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 a muscle disability is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

9. Service connection for a bilateral hip disability is denied.

The Veteran contends that he has a bilateral hip disability related to his service, to include due to hiking and strenuous duties.

However, the record does not show that he has a diagnosis of a bilateral hip disability, or functional impairment to earning capacity thereof.

The service treatment records do not reflect complaints or reports of hip pain.

On May 2023 VA examination, the Veteran reported throbbing pain in both hips that had stayed the same. However, clinical examination of the hips, to include range of motion testing, showed no functional impairment.

Range of motion did not evidence pain, crepitus, or tenderness of either hip. The Veteran did not report experiencing flares.

The Veteran has not identified any records that would show a diagnosis of a bilateral hip disability and or functional impairment to earning capacity dues to hip pain.

In light of the foregoing, while the Veteran reports having throbbing hip pain, there does not appear to be evidence, clinically or from the Veteran himself, that this pain results in an inability of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. As such, the Board finds that he does not have any functional impairment of his hips. See Saunders, supra.

Thus, the Board has considered the Veteran's claim and contentions, but the evidence does not meet the standard, at this juncture, of a disability of the hips for VA purposes. See Kahana, supra; See Jandreau, supra.

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 a bilateral hip disability is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

STEVEN D. REISS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board R. Erdheim, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer