BVA Case 09-3224: Back

Ackerman was not entitled to benefits for bilateral hearing loss was not clearly erroneous;because the September 2003 VA medical examination,including the November 2003 addendum,was adequate;and because the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision,the Court will affirm the April 30,2009,Board decision.

Akkerman was exposed to acoustic trauma in service,but found that the preponderance of the evidence indicated that his current hearing disability was not etiologically related to the in-service noise exposure.

Moreover,the Board determined that there was no evidence that Mr.

Akkerman submitted an informal brief arguing that (1)the Board's determination that he was not entitled to benefits for bilateral hearing loss was clearly erroneous; (2)the September 2003 VA medical examination,including the November 2003 addendum,is inadequate;and (3)the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision.

Akkerman's informal brief an argument that the Board's determination that he was not entitled to 3 direct or presumptive service connection for bilateral hearing loss was clearly erroneous.

Service connection on a direct basis is established when the record before the Secretary contains lay or medical evidence of (1)a current disability,(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the in-service injury or disease and the current disability.

However,the Board determined that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current disability and his in-service noise exposure sufficient to satisfy the third requirement.

Akkerman's lay statements regarding nexus,including his statements to the VA examiner in September 2003 that he first experienced hearing loss in service in 1996 or 1997,but determined that,in light of the negative evidence of record indicating that his hearing was normal upon discharge from the military,Mr.