BVA Case 24-4708: Back

Mackey's conceded in-service noise exposure;thus,any future hearing loss was less likely as not related to such noise exposure because there was not currently any evidence of noise-induced damage.

In March 2020,VA determined that new and relevant evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for tinnitus; but it could not award service connection for tinnitus because there was no evidence of a nexus to service.

In reciting the evidence,the Board found that hearing loss,as that condition is defined by VA,was not shown during the September 2013 clinical audiology evaluation,nor was it shown during the November 2013 or February 2020VA examinations.

Mackey the benefit of the doubt,the Board found that he has hearing loss in his right ear that meets VA's criteria for hearing loss.

As a result,the Board determined that the June 2019private medical opinionwas not probative, 4 Case:24-4708 Page: 5 of 12 Filed:12/05/2025 because it was based on those discredited reports of an in-service onset of hearing loss.

Mackey's ]claims, the Board concluded,service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was not warranted.

Mackey argues that the Board failed to appropriately apply the benefit of the doubt doctrine when it rejected his lay evidence of the onset and frequency of his hearingloss and tinnitus symptoms,and that the Board clearlyerred in relyingon the November 2013 and February 2020 VA examinations to deny his claim for tinnitus.

The Secretary disagrees that the Board erred and urges affirmance.