BVA9500740 DOCKET NO. 93-07 236 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James A. Pritchett, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from April 1951 to April 1953. This appeal arises from a September 1991 decision by the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied service connection for hearing loss. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends service connection is warranted for hearing loss. He maintains that the examination for separation was deficient as it could not detect a high frequency hearing loss. It is asserted that the repeated concussions from tank muzzle blasts caused the veteran's hearing loss. It is further contended that the fact that the veteran's hearing in his left ear is worse than his right is evidence that his hearing loss was caused when he observed fire from the right of the tank's gun. It is further asserted that the eustachian salpingitis for which the veteran was treated while in active service was a result of repeated concussion from tank firing. It is further contended that the veteran has not been exposed to noise trauma since his release from active service. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board of Veterans' Appeals (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 service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran's currently diagnosed bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss is related to acoustic trauma in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Bilateral hearing loss was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran's claim is "well grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. That is, he has presented a claim which is plausible, and all relevant facts have been properly developed. The Board notes that the veteran stated that he was examined by a private physician shortly after his separation from active service. He further stated that the physician had died several years ago and attempts to locate his records had been unsuccessful. Since the veteran lives in the same city as did the deceased physician and he was unable to locate any treatment records prior to July 1991, it would be futile for the RO to make such an attempt now. Therefore, no further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the duty to assist the veteran mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. The veteran's service medical records are incomplete, as some records apparently were destroyed in the fire at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. A search of hospital admission data cards compiled by the Office of Surgeon General revealed that the veteran was treated for acute eustachian salpingitis in April 1952. There is no evidence of follow-up treatment. The report of the examination for separation indicates that the veteran's score on the whispered voice test was 15/15 bilaterally. No profile for hearing loss is listed in the report. There is no documentary record of treatment or examination for hearing loss until May 1991. A letter from Max L. Ronis, M.D., states the veteran was examined in May 1991 and the audiogram revealed a bilateral reasonably symmetrical sloping and high frequency hearing loss with some recovery at 8,000 cycles. The letter recounts the service history given by the veteran and states that the results of the audiogram seemed to be fairly consistent with loud noise induced hearing loss and that since the veteran had not been exposed to loud noises since active service, Dr. Ronis assumed that the hearing loss was secondary to loud noise exposure in service. The report of a VA special audiological examination dated in July 1991 contains a complaint that the veteran could not hear high frequencies in either ear. On the audiological evaluation , pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 5 20 40 45 LEFT 0 20 50 70 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 96 percent in the right ear and of 92 percent in the left ear. A notation states that the veteran had moderate to severe high frequency sensorineural hearing loss with good speech discrimination. The diagnosis was high frequency bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. A rating decision dated in September 1991 denied service connection for hearing loss on the basis that the evidence failed to demonstrate that a hearing loss was incurred or aggravated in active service or within the presumptive period therefore. At his personal hearing in November 1992, the veteran testified that he was a member of a tank crew during his active service. He stated that part of his duties consisted of directing fire. He testified that the soldier who directed fire had to stand up in an open hatch and observe where the tank's rounds landed and give directions to the gunner. He stated that the director was about 16 feet behind and to the right of the muzzle of the tank's gun. He testified that when the gun was fired the muzzle brake on the end of the gun directed the blast down and back. The veteran stated that the effect of the muzzle blast was similar to being punched in the face. He testified that the left ear was more exposed to the blast than the right. He stated that on occasion several tanks fired at the same time, some being only 20 or 30 yards from the veteran's tank. The veteran testified that ear protectors were never available and that there was a general deafness for a time after each firing session. He stated that he had to qualify with small arms and that hearing protection was not available for that either. The veteran testified that he was treated for eustachian salpingitis in mid-1952. He stated that it was very unlikely that the eustachian salpingitis caused high frequency nerve damage, but he felt that the continual muzzle blast forced something up the eustachian tubes. He testified that the service now provides ear protection for soldiers in similar circumstances. The veteran stated that he went to an audiologist several months after his separation from the service because he suspected that he had some hearing loss. He testified that he did know that he had a high frequency hearing loss in 1953, but that he felt at the time that it would have been unpatriotic and ungrateful to complain about such a minor thing. He stated that he consulted a specialist just before he filed his claim and that the specialist stated that a hearing aid might be helpful and might be necessary. He stated that he had not fired a weapon since his active service and that he did not play loud music at home. The veteran submitted an extract from a publication which notes that the veteran's unit spent 189 days in field training between the spring of 1950 and the spring of 1951. The above evidence fails to demonstrate that hearing loss was present during the veteran's period of active duty. He has maintained, however, that the currently diagnosed sensori-neural hearing loss is a consequence of exposure to heavy weapons fire during that time, and has presented a private medical opinion which is essentially to that effect. Service records do confirm that the veteran was assigned to a tank battalion, and he has denied significant post-service noise exposure. In the opinion of the Board, it is as least as likely as not that there is validity to the claimed relationship between the veteran's duties while on active duty and his present bilateral hearing loss. Resolving all doubt in his favor, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is in order. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. . ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. WAYNE M. BRAEUER 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.