BVA Case 23-3920: Depression

The RO and the Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the back claim.

Regarding the etiology of hearing loss,the examiner opined that it was not related to service and explained as follows: There is no significant permanent shift in hearing threshold beyond test variability from entrance to separation,which is objective evidence of no permanent auditory damage on active duty from conceded noise.

There must be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise and not another etiology.

The evidence is against a nexus in this case[;]therefore it is less likely than not that the hearing loss is related to military noise exposure.

In April 2019,the RO denied disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus and found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the back claim.

Later that month,the appellant filed supplemental claims,and in May 2019,the RO found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claims.

In May 2023,the Board denied disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss,bilateral tinnitus,and a back condition.

Parties'Arguments Regarding the Board's denial of disability compensation for a back condition,the appellant argues that the RO failed to consider and develop whether his back condition was a chronic disease under 38 C.