HEARING LOSS

MICHAEL J. SKALTSOUNIS · 2026 · Case ID: A26041025

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served from December 1990 to September 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and seeks service connection for tinnitus and a thoracolumbar disorder. The veteran also sought a compensable rating for a left shoulder injury but withdrew this claim during a Board hearing. Regarding bilateral hearing loss, the Board denied the claim, finding no current disability based on VA audiology examination results showing normal hearing and speech recognition scores. The veteran's lay testimony regarding hearing loss was outweighed by the objective clinical testing. For tinnitus, the Board granted service connection, finding the veteran's lay testimony credible and consistent with continuity of symptomatology, despite an initial inadequate VA examiner opinion. The Board found the veteran's description of acoustic trauma from weapons fire and heavy machinery without ear protection persuasive. For the thoracolumbar disorder (degenerative disc disease), service connection was granted. While service treatment records were silent, the veteran's lay statements and a private chiropractic opinion from Dr. S.M. linked the onset and persistence of back pain to in-service activities like carrying heavy packs. The Board found the private opinion probative due to its detailed rationale and the lack of contrary evidence, resolving doubt in the veteran's favor. The left shoulder claim was dismissed as withdrawn.

Rationale

No current disability for VA purposes; VA audiology exam showed normal hearing; Veteran's lay testimony outweighed by objective testing

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210706-170289

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26041025
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210706-170289
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a thoracolumbar disorder, diagnosed as degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the thoracic and lumbar spine, is granted.

Entitlement to a compensable rating for a left shoulder injury with pain is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The most probative evidence does not reflect that the Veteran has had either a right or left ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes during or contemporaneous to the appeal period.

2. The Veteran's symptoms for tinnitus have been adequately related to an injury during active duty.

3. The Veteran's thoracolumbar disorder has been adequately related to active duty.

4. In February 2025, the Veteran testified in his Board hearing that he would like to withdraw his appeal for entitlement to a compensable rating for a left shoulder injury with pain.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b), 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.302, 20.1103.

3. The criteria for service connection for a thoracolumbar disorder, diagnosed as DDD of the thoracic and lumbar spine have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304

4. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a compensable disability rating for a left shoulder injury with pain have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served active duty from December 1990 to September 1991.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in May 2021, after which the Veteran filed a July 2021, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement); the Veteran elected the Hearing Review docket.

In February 2025, the Veteran attended a Board hearing. The transcript of that hearing has been associated with the Veteran's claims file.

Hearing review is the appeal option of the Board in which the Board may consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, and any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or representative] at the Board 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 on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the Board hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

The Board has recharacterized the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a thoracolumbar disorder, diagnosed as DDD of the thoracic and lumbar spine to more accurately depict the full scope of his disability claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1,4-5. The Board further notes that while this claim was identified as including a cervical spine disability, the Veteran clarified at his hearing that he did not injure the neck area in service and did not intend to pursue such a claim.

Service Connection

The Veteran contends that his disabilities are related to his military service.

In order to establish service connection for the claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999).

The requirement of a current disability is "satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the p
pursue such a claim.

Service Connection

The Veteran contends that his disabilities are related to his military service.

The requirement of a current disability is "satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim." See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required for service connection if the disability is one that is listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Service connection may also be granted on the basis of a post-service initial diagnosis of a disease, where the physician relates the current condition to the period of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Other specifically enumerated disorders will be presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within the first year following separation from active duty. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309.

Lay statements may serve to support a claim for service connection by supporting the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1153 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, some medical issues fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011).

Generally, the degree of probative value which may be attributed to a medical opinion issued by a VA or private treatment provider takes into account such factors as its thoroughness and degree of detail, and whether there was review of the claims file. Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000). Also significant is whether the examining medical provider had a sufficiently clear and well-reasoned rationale and a basis in objective supporting clinical data. See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999); Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998); see also Claiborne v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 181, 186 (2005) (rejecting medical opinions that did not indicate whether the physicians actually examined the Veteran, did not provide the extent of any examination, and did not provide any supporting clinical data).

In evaluating the evidence in any given appeal, it is the responsibility of the Board to weigh the evidence and decide where to give credit and where to withhold the same and, in so doing, accept certain medical opinions over others. Schoolman v. West, 12 Vet. App. 307, 310-11 (1999). In this regard, 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, supra. Indeed
physicians actually examined the Veteran, did not provide the extent of any examination, and did not provide any supporting clinical data).

In evaluating the evidence in any given appeal, it is the responsibility of the Board to weigh the evidence and decide where to give credit and where to withhold the same and, in so doing, accept certain medical opinions over others. Schoolman v. West, 12 Vet. App. 307, 310-11 (1999). In this regard, 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, supra. 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 doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 30 (1998).

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA. VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

Initially, the Board notes that service connection for impaired hearing is subject to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, which provides that 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.

As to the claim for service connection for hearing loss, the threshold question that must be addressed is whether the Veteran actually has the disability for which service connection is sought; specifically hearing loss. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there is no valid claim of service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

As to a current diagnosis, the Board notes that the evidence of record reflects that the Veteran has normal hearing pursuant to VA standards.

Turning to the medical evidence at hand, the Veteran underwent a VA audiology examination in February 2021. The examiner recorded pure tone thresholds, in decibels, at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 hertz (Hz) were as follows: 15, 15, 10, 25, 25, 20, and 25, for the right ear, with an average of 18.75; and 15, 15, 10, 25, 25, 25, and 25 for the left ear, with an average of 18.75. The Veteran's Maryland CNC speech recognition scores were 98 percent in the right ear and 100 percent in the left ear. Following the examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran had bilateral normal hearing.

In sum, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. After a review of the record, the Board has found no evidence that demonstrates that the Veteran suffers bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran asserts that he does in fact have such bilateral hearing loss; however, the Veteran's statements are outweighed by the objective clinical testing that shows the Veteran does not have hearing loss for VA purposes. Accordingly, based on the VA examination results and evidence of record, service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied because there is no current disability. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against service connection for bilateral hearing loss, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.
, the Board has found no evidence that demonstrates that the Veteran suffers bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran asserts that he does in fact have such bilateral hearing loss; however, the Veteran's statements are outweighed by the objective clinical testing that shows the Veteran does not have hearing loss for VA purposes. Accordingly, based on the VA examination results and evidence of record, service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied because there is no current disability. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against service connection for bilateral hearing loss, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted.

As to a current diagnosis, the evidence of record reflects that the Veteran's has been diagnosed with tinnitus. See February 2021 VA examination.

As to the in-service incurrence, the Board notes that the Veteran served as an infantryman and was exposed to acoustic trauma while on active duty.

Turning to the medical evidence at hand, the Board notes that the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue in February 2021. The Veteran reported his tinnitus became more noticeable in 2016. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran reported exposure to 'mechanical noise from diesel/gas engines, and incoming fire." Following the examination, the examiner found that the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely as not related to his military service. The examiner additionally opined that the Veteran's disability was not related to his military service because the Veteran's STRS reflect "no significant permanent shift in hearing thresholds greater than normal measurement variability from entrance to separation, which is evidence of no permanent auditory damage on active duty."

The Veteran then testified in his February 2025 Board hearing that while he was on active duty, he damaged his auditory system. Specifically, the Veteran testified that as part of his job in the infantry he was constantly shooting a weapon, and at times he wasn't provided earplugs, damaging his auditory system. The Veteran additionally testified that, "they don't provide earplugs in the field, too. It's constantly, like I try exercises, where we have to shoot, like, blanks or whatever, and they don't provide any kind of ear protection at all. I also rode in, like, heavy machinery, which is like troop carriers, which is constantly going we're right at the engine, so it's constantly revving, revving all the time, and we stay in there all day without any kind of hearing protection at all." The Veteran noted that he experiences constant humming and ringing that interrupts his sleep. The Veteran further confirmed in his testimony that his problems have continued since onset.

The Board finds the examiner's opinion inadequate. The Board reached this conclusion because the examiner simply found that the Veteran's disorder was not related to his active military service because there was no significant permanent shift in his hearing thresholds greater than normal measurement variability from entrance to separation.

In sum, the Board finds that service connection for the Veteran's tinnitus is warranted. The Board notes that the Veteran has credibly reported that he experienced tinnitus in his ears since service and as such, his tinnitus may be presumed to be related to service based on continuity of symptomatology. As was noted previously, as diseases of the nervous system, the Board finds that the Veteran's tinnitus is entitled to the application of this provision. After a review of the record, the Board finds that the evidence, both positive and negative as to the issue of service connection for tinnitus is at least evenly balanced. Based on the foregoing and resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that service connection for the Veteran's tinnitus is warranted.

Entitlement to service connection for a thoracolumbar disorder is granted.

As to a current diagnosis, the Board notes that the Veteran's symptoms have been confirmed as DDD of the thoracic and lumbar spine. See August 2024 private medical examination.

As to the in-service incurrence, the Board notes that the Veteran's records are silent for a diagnosis or treatment of a thoracolumbar disorder. However, the Veteran stated that the onset of his thoracolumbar disorder started while in service.

As to the Veteran's lay statements, the Board notes that the Veteran stated in his August 2024 private medical examination that his thoracolumbar disorder started during military service and has been ongoing since onset.

The Veteran provided an August 2024 private medical opinion as evidence for his February 20205 Board hearing. The examining clinician, a Doctor of Chiropractic and Qualified Medical Evaluator, S.M., confirmed the diagnosis of the Veteran's symptoms as DDD of the thoracic and lumbar spine. The Veteran stated that he sustained an injury to his thoracolumbar anatomy while in service. The Veteran reported that he currently experiences "back pain." S.M. also noted that the Veteran experiences "chronic back pain, muscle spasms, and reduced range of motion." S.M. noted that "Mr. Siu began experiencing symptoms of back pain during his service period. His symptoms have persisted and worsened over time, despite various treatments." S.M. opined that the Veteran's disability was related to his military service because the Veteran's current symptoms are known to be triggered or exacerbated by the experiences and injuries the Veteran sustained during his service. S.M. concluded that "given the evidence, it is my medical opinion that Mr. S.'s thoracic and lumbar spine conditions are directly connected to his military service. This connection should be taken into consideration when determining his eligibility for VA disability benefits."

The Veteran then testified in his February 2025 Board hearing that while he was on active duty, he injured his thoracolumbar anatomy. Specifically, the Veteran testified that as an "infantryman", traversing rough terrain, he would carry 60-to-85-pound packs and his weapon, resulting in a total load of 100 pounds. The Veteran testified that he continues to have issues with his back and stated that, "it's gotten to a point where it will always hurt. I would have to stretch it out, or kind of like crack my back, how do you say it? Crack my back to make it adjusted better, and it's still going on today." The Veteran further confirmed in his testimony that his problems have continued since onset, and they have gotten progressively worse.

The Board finds the August 2024 private medical opinion probative. The Board reached this conclusion because S.M. supported the opinion with a well-reasoned and detailed rationale that considered the Veteran's medical history and lay statements. The record does not contain any adequate opinions to the contrary.

With respect to a nexus, the Board notes that the Veteran's treatment records note an injury, complaints, and treatment for thoracolumbar anatomy issues. A review of the Veteran's records shows how his thoracolumbar anatomy issues began during service and have continued to the present date. There is no reason for the Board to question the veracity of the lay statements submitted in support of this claim. However, to the extent that the grant of service connection is based primarily on lay evidence, "nothing in the regulatory or statutory provisions [relating to evidence to be considered] require both medical and competent lay evidence; rather, they make clear that competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself." Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1335.

In sum, based on review of the record, both lay and medical, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's diagnosed DDD of the thoracic and lumbar spine are related to service. Accordingly, the Board resolves any reasonable doubt in the appellant's favor and finds that entitlement to service connection for DDD of the thoracic and lumbar spine is therefore also warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Entitlement to a compensable rating for a left shoulder injury with pain has been withdrawn.

In February 2025, the Veteran testified in his Board hearing that he would like to withdraw his appeal for entitlement to a compensable rating for a left shoulder injury with pain.

As the Veteran has withdrawn this appeal, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal as to this claim, and it is dismissed.

Michael J. Skaltsounis

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board W. Taylor

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect
.102.