BVA9507347 DOCKET NO. 92-18 990 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. J. Vecchiollo, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty in the Armed Forces from December 1962 to December 1964. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 1990 rating determination from the Newark, New Jersey, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A notice of disagreement was received in September 1990. A statement of the case was issued in October 1990. A substantive appeal was received in March 1991. A hearing was held at the RO before a member of a traveling section of the Board in October 1992. At this hearing, the veteran withdrew two issues, that of service connection for abdominal lipoma and entitlement to service connection for toxic chemical exposure. This case was remanded by the Board in February 1993. The Board notes that a July 1994 rating decision did not reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a left disability. As a notice of disagreement is not of record for this issue, the issue is not in appellate status. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 1991). CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends an explosion of a rifle powered grenade in service resulted in hearing loss and tinnitus which has bothered him continuously to the present. The veteran maintains that his failing a communications course in service because he could not hear Morse Code signals through earphones after the grenade incident demonstrates that the hearing loss and tinnitus did not resolve after the incident. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the evidence does not support entitlement to service connection for hearing loss; and that the evidence does not support entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran complained of a hearing loss and tinnitus in service. 2. Any hearing loss and tinnitus the veteran had in service resolved completely before the veteran finished his active service, and the veteran did not have a disability manifested by a hearing loss or tinnitus at the time his active service ended. 3. The veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus began many years after his active service ended. 4. There is no evidence from medical personnel linking the veteran's current hearing loss to the in-service hearing loss. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (West 1991). 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be granted when the veteran has a disability as the result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated by wartime or peacetime service that is not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991). In addition, service connection may be granted for organic disease of the nervous system if it became manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of such service. Because a sensorineural hearing loss involves damage to the nerve, the presumption is applicable to a sensorineural hearing loss. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1137 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a) (1994). 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 a 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 where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1994). Service medical records reveal that the veteran presented in February 1963 with a two week complaint of frequent light-headed sensation, decreased hearing and buzzing tinnitus since a rifle- powered grenade explosion. The veteran stated that he was not wearing any ear protection. The examiner stated that both tympanic membranes were bulging and opaque. An impression of bilateral serous otitis media was given. Both eardrums were drained. A progress note in March 1963 indicated that the ringing persisted notwithstanding the treatment and the veteran's hearing was impaired. An examination noted that the ears were clear. The veteran was afforded an audiology evaluation that same month. Concerning the right ear, the audiogram for pure tone thresholds revealed: a zero dB threshold at 500, a 5 decibel threshold at 1000, a 5 dB threshold at 2000, a 20 dB threshold at 4000, a 55 dB threshold at 6000. Concerning the left ear, the audiogram for pure tone thresholds revealed: a 15 dB threshold at 500, a 10 dB threshold at 1000, a 5 dB threshold at 2000, a 45 dB threshold at 4000, a 50 dB threshold at 6000. In April 1963, a progress notes indicates "same as above" and the veteran was referred to an ears, nose and throat specialist. In May 1963, the right ear was negative for fluid. When the veteran was examined for separation from service in December 1964, he gave a negative response to a question as to whether he had or had ever had ear, nose, or throat trouble. He was afforded an audiology evaluation. Concerning the right ear, the audiogram for pure tone thresholds revealed: a 15 dB threshold at 500, a 15 decibel threshold at 1000, a 15 dB threshold at 2000, a 15 dB threshold at 4000. Concerning the left ear, the audiogram for pure tone thresholds revealed: a 15 dB threshold at 500, a 15 dB threshold at 1000, a 15 dB threshold at 2000, a 30 dB threshold at 4000. No hearing loss or tinnitus was noted by the veteran or the examiner. The veteran first filed a claim for service connection for hearing loss in 1990 over 26 years after service. The veteran was afforded a VA examination to include an audiology evaluation in March 1990. Concerning the right ear, the audiogram for pure tone thresholds revealed: a 25 decibel threshold at 1000, a 50 dB threshold at 2000, a 70 dB threshold at 3000, a 90 dB threshold at 4000; the average of the thresholds from 1000 to 4000 was 59. Concerning the left ear, the audiogram for pure tone thresholds revealed: a 30 dB threshold at 1000, a 40 dB threshold at 2000, a 80 dB threshold at 3000, a 80 dB threshold at 4000; the average of the thresholds from 1000 to 4000 was 58. His speech recognition was 84 percent in the right ear and 88 percent in the left ear. The examination revealed that the veteran had mild sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear through 1500 Hertz which became profound with higher frequencies, and mild sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear through 2000 Hertz which became severe with higher frequencies. Intermittent high- pitched tinnitus was also noted. The veteran contends that an explosion caused by a rifle powered grenade in service caused his current hearing loss and tinnitus. However, the question of whether the symptoms currently manifested by the veteran are attributable to any alleged injury or disease in service can only be resolved by a person competent to make medical judgments. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). No probative weight can be accorded to the veteran's hypothesizing as to the etiology of his current disability, particularly if not supported by any medical authority. Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221, 225 (1991). The veteran's unsubstantiated assertions are, therefore, insufficient to establish that his current hearing loss and tinnitus are the result of any occurrence or event in service which was over 26 years prior to the first diagnosis of the current disability. The veteran maintains that he failed a communications course in service because he could not hear Morse Code signals through earphones after the grenade incident. According to the veteran, this demonstrates that the hearing loss and tinnitus did not resolve after the incident. Although the veteran's service personnel records show that the veteran was qualified as a radio operator, the personnel records do not refer to training in Morse code or to any difficulty with training resulting from inadequate hearing acuity. In support of his contentions, the veteran submitted a lay witness statement from his spouse, dated in October 1992, who stated that he has had hearing and equilibrium problems for the 17 years that she had known him. As she first met the veteran over 10 years after separation from service, she cannot provide any testimony regarding whether these problems were incurred in service. The Board finds that the veteran did suffer hearing loss and tinnitus in service. However, the Board also notes that there were no complaints or findings of hearing loss or tinnitus on discharge examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1994). Because the written reports of the examination were prepared by medical professionals at the time the veteran was undergoing his examination for separation from service, the written records are more reliable than the veteran's recent statements, which are based on recollections of events that occurred many years ago. Thus, the written record of the examination has greater evidentiary weight than the veteran's recollections about his hearing difficulties, with the result that the clear weight of the evidence supports a finding that the hearing loss and tinnitus in service were temporary disorders that resolved completely by the time the veteran's active service ended. The evidence does not establish continuity to link to service a diagnosis made over 26 years after service. The Board has also considered the benefit of doubt doctrine, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991), but does not find the evidence in equipoise which would warrant application of this doctrine. ORDER The appeals are denied. G.H. SHUFELT Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.