BVA Case 14-1330: Back

Regarding VA's duty to assist,the Board found the March 2012 audiological examination adequate to enable the Board to make an informed decision on the claims,noting that the examiner considered the appellant's medical history and noise exposure in service,and provided an opinion with supporting rationale.

The Board determined that a new examination was not necessary to consider the appellant's training as a field artillery specialist because the VA examiner already assumed .

Turning to the merits of the appellant's claims, the Board conceded that the evidence established a current disability and hazardous noise exposure during service,but found that the preponderance of the evidence weighed against a relationship between the appellant's hearing loss and tinnitus and his in-service noise exposure.

In particular, the Board found the March 2012 VA examiner's opinion highly probative,stating that her opinions are supported by a clearly articulated rationale that is consistent with the evidence of record,and that her opinion outweighed the May 2011 treating physician's opinion,which was not supported by an explanation,and failed to account for the fact that the appellant's hearing was normal at separation and that hearing loss did not manifest until several years after service.

Additionally,the Board found the appellant incompetent to provide an opinion regarding nexus and further found the appellant's history,reported in his March 2012 statement in support of claim and NA Form 13055,incredible.

ANALYSIS Establishing entitlement to disability compensation benefits generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability;(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service;and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.

A finding of service connection,or no service connection, is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard.

5 A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.