BVA9507943 DOCKET NO. 93-16 164 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Julie Ann Austin, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a March 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Los Angeles, California (RO) which denied service connection for hearing loss. The veteran, who had active service from April 1946 to April 1949 and from November 1950 to July 1966, appealed that determination to the BVA, and the case was received at the Board in July 1993. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran essentially contends that the RO was incorrect in not granting the benefits sought on appeal. He maintains, in substance, that hearing loss had its onset during service. The veteran contends that hearing tests given during service were inadequate, in particular, a hearing test given in December 1974 prior to completion of his reserve obligation. He reports that an audiogram given by a civilian employer in October 1970 revealed that the veteran had a hearing loss. Lastly, the veteran contends that he was not issued hearing protection devices during service. Reference is made to the evidence of record as supporting these contentions. Therefore, a favorable determination has been requested. 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 claim for serfice connection for hearing loss is not a well grounded claim and must be dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. Hearing loss is not shown to have been present during service. 3. A bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was first shown at least several years following service and has not been shown to be causally or etiologically linked to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim to establish entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107, 7105(d) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION As a preliminary matter, the Board must determine whether the veteran's claim is "well grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a)(West 1991). See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990). That is, the Board must find that the veteran has presented a claim which is not implausible when his contentions and the evidence of record are viewed in the light most favorable to his claim. In this regard, the veteran has the "burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded." 38 U.S. C. A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). If he has not, his appeal must fail and be dismissed. Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993). The Board finds that the claim presented is not well grounded. Since the appellant has not presented a well-grounded claim for service connection for hearing loss in the instant case, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether or not the benefit sought on appeal is warranted and the appeal must be dismissed. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5); Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 136, 140 (1994); Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993). A review of the evidence discloses that the veteran's service medical records contain no evidence of complaints, clinical findings, treatment or diagnosis of hearing loss. The Board acknowledges that the veteran's service medical records do contain evidence of treatment for an ear infection in his right ear in June of 1963 and in his left ear in August of 1965. However, both infections were of short duration and in neither case was a complaint of hearing loss associated with the infections. The Board notes that all hearing examinations of the veteran during his service career show his hearing to be within normal levels. Finally, during an audiogram dated August 26, 1975, approximately nine years following discharge from service, the veteran reported his hearing as "Good" as recorded by the technician who administered the audiogram. The veteran contends that he received inadequate hearing evaluations during service. However, the Board must confine its opinion regarding the veteran's hearing acuity during service to the service medical records since no other records of the veteran's hearing levels are known to exist. As to the contention that the veteran was not issued appropriate hearing protection equipment, the Board notes that it cannot affirm or deny this contention. Despite the alleged lack of hearing protection equipment, no evidence of hearing loss due to the lack of protective equipment exists in the veteran's records. Finally, as to the contention that an audiogram given by a civilian facility in October 1970 indicates that he suffered a hearing loss, the Board responds that this audiogram was given nearly four years after the veteran's final physical dated July 1966, which indicated hearing within normal levels. Even if audiometric testing had been utilized in December 1974 when the veteran underwent a quadrennial examination for purposes of retention in the fleet reserve, any hearing loss detected would have been a number of years after the veteran's active service. For compensation purposes, a disease or injury must have been incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval or air service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (1994). The service medical records do not reveal a single complaint or evidence of hearing loss during the veteran's service. The record contains no opinion from any medical expert following service that indicates that the veteran's hearing loss was in any way related to service. Godfrey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 352 (1991). While the veteran may be of the opinion that his hearing loss is related to service, as a lay person he is not competent to offer an opinion involving medical causation. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494 (1992). Since the veteran has submitted no medical evidence which postulates a relationship between the hearing loss first shown following service and his military service, he has not met his "burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that this claim is well- grounded." 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. ORDER A well-grounded claim for service connection for hearing loss, not having been submitted, the appeal is dismissed. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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.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.