BVA9507137 DOCKET NO. 93-14 036 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Shawkey, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1968 to May 1972. This case comes to the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from a March 1991 decision by a VARO which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he has defective hearing caused by his 3-year exposure to jet blasts while serving as a sonarman aboard the USS Intrepid. Specifically, he contends that his duties included having to go out onto the deck just below the flight deck without ear protection. He contends that this exposure damaged his hearing and that his hearing has gotten progressively worse. 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 veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not well grounded and must be dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT The veteran has not submitted evidence of a plausible claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Factual Background The veteran served on active duty in the Navy from July 1968 to May 1972. He served aboard the USS Intrepid as a sonar technician. He did not indicate any ear or hearing difficulty on his pre-induction physical examination performed in February 1968. The examination, which included audiometric testing, revealed pure tone decibel thresholds of 0, 0, 0 and 0 in the right ear, and 0, 0, 0 and 0 in the left ear at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 Hertz, respectively. The next audiogram was performed in September 1969 and revealed pure tone thresholds of 5, -5, -10, 5, -5 and 10 in the right ear, and 5, -5, 0, 0, 5 and 5 in the left ear at 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 4,000 and 6,000 Hertz, respectively. Results from a November 1970 audiogram revealed pure tone thresholds of 25, 10, 10, 5, 15 and 25 in the right ear, and 15, 10, 10, 10, 15 and 25 in the left ear at 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 and 6,000 Hertz, respectively. His service medical records contain no indication of either complaints of or treatment for hearing loss. He underwent audiometric testing during an examination upon his release from duty in May 1972. Pure tone thresholds were shown to be 15, 15, 10, 10, 10 and 20 in his right ear, and 20, 10, 15, 20, 15 and 5 in his left ear at 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, and 6,000 Hertz, respectively. In his original VA compensation claim, filed in February 1990, the veteran requested service connection for a psychiatric condition; he made no mention of hearing loss. A general VA medical examination conducted in April 1990 did not include an audiometric examination. However, the examiner indicated that no hearing loss was noted on clinical evaluation of the ears. The veteran's initial claim for service connection for hearing loss was received by the VA in March 1991. He indicated that his hearing had been tested in the Navy, and he reported no post- service evaluation or treatment for hearing loss. In subsequent statements he alleged that he had hearing loss as the result of his exposure to the noise from jets when he served aboard the aircraft carrier Intrepid. In October 1992, an audiogram was performed at a private facility. Pure tone thresholds were 15, 20, 30, 20, 40, 50 and 55 in the right ear, and 25, 30, 30, 30, 35, 65 and 55 in the left ear at 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, and 6,000 Hertz, respectively. Speech discrimination was 100 percent correct in both ears. A hearing was conducted at the RO in November 1992. The veteran testified that he had excellent hearing when he entered service and that his hearing deteriorated during service, as shown by the service audiograms. He asserted that the noise of jet aircraft aboard the Intrepid damaged his hearing, which had deteriorated since then. The veteran described temporary jobs he had after service, when he was a student, such as working in a sugar mill and around crop duster airplanes, and he reported other post- service jobs, such as school teacher and welfare worker. He also stated that he had been a musician all his life, and still occasionally performed music jobs; he said his hearing loss was particularly bothersome in that endeavor. The veteran said that he did not believe that hearing loss due to old age normally sets in at his age of 46. Analysis The threshold question to be answered is whether the veteran has met his burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief that his claim, for service connection for hearing loss, is well-grounded, meaning plausible. If he has not submitted a well-grounded claim, there is no VA duty to assist him in developing the claim, and his appeal must fail. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The veteran's 1968-1972 service medical records show no diagnosis of hearing loss. As pointed out by the veteran, successive audiometric tests in service showed higher decibel thresholds, compared to the pre-induction examination. Yet, his hearing was found to be normal (decibel thresholds of 20 or less; Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 155, 157 (1993)) at the separation examination. The post-service April 1990 VA general examination indicated that no hearing loss was noted. Service connection was not claimed for hearing loss, and there is no medical evidence of the condition, until about two decades after service. A 1992 audiology test shows the presence of a bilateral hearing loss disability (under the standards of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385). The veteran alleges that his current hearing loss is due to exposure to jet noise while aboard the USS Intrepid, but he has submitted no medical evidence of this. Although a claim need not be conclusive, to be well grounded, it must be accompanied by evidence, not just allegations. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992). Where, as in the present case, a claimed disability is not shown during service or for years later, competent medical evidence of causality, between events of service and the current condition, is required to make the service connection claim well grounded. The veteran, being a layman, has no competence to give a medical opinion on the diagnosis or etiology of his condition, and thus his allegation, that exposure to jet blasts in service caused his current hearing loss, is not cognizable evidence and is not sufficient to render his claim well grounded. Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 140 (1994); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1992); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 495 (1992). In the absence of the necessary medical evidence of causality, the veteran's claim for service connection for hearing loss is implausible and not well grounded. For these reasons, the claim must be dismissed as not well grounded. The RO is advised that prior decisions on the merits of this claim are to be regarded as dismissals, without finality as to the merits. See Grottveit, Grivois, supra. ORDER The claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is dismissed as not well grounded. L. W. TOBIN 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.