A VA hearing-loss denial usually turns on one of three questions: whether your test results meet VA's definition of a hearing disability, whether VA accepts that you were exposed to hazardous noise in service, and whether a clinician explained a link between the two. You can struggle to follow a conversation and still be denied on the first question, or meet the definition and be denied on the third. The decision and the complete audiology report tell you which question you have.
The definition is specific. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, impaired hearing counts as a disability for VA purposes if any one of these applies in an ear: a threshold of 40 decibels or more at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 or 4000 Hz; thresholds of 26 decibels or more at three or more of those frequencies; or a Maryland CNC speech-recognition score below 94%. These are alternative gates, not a score you add up. A clinician may find some hearing loss even when a test does not meet this VA definition.
Normal hearing when you left service does not end the claim. In Hensley v. Brown (1993), the Court of Veterans Appeals held that "section 3.385 does not preclude service connection for a current hearing disability where hearing was within normal limits on audiometric testing at separation from service," as long as evidence shows the current disability is related to service.
Put the decision and the test on the same page
Start with the denial's issue-specific "Reasons for Decision," favorable findings, evidence list, and the complete audiology report. Record which ear was tested, the date, the five listed frequencies, and whether the speech test was the Maryland CNC. A summary such as "hearing within normal limits" is not a substitute for the numbers and the examiner's actual reasoning. Ask an audiologist about any missing, inconsistent or non-comparable result.
Fictional illustration, not an actual audiogram: one ear shows 20, 20, 25, 30 and 35 dB at the five frequencies, with a Maryland CNC score of 96%. None of the § 3.385 gates is met. Trouble following speech in a crowded room is worth describing, but it does not change the printed numbers. A later, properly performed test may show different results, which would be new evidence to assess.
In a second fictional example, a threshold is 40 dB at 4000 Hz. That meets one gate but says nothing about when the loss began or what caused it. If VA already accepted both a qualifying result and hazardous service noise, look at the examiner's explanation of the link instead of ordering the same test again.
Separate service noise from the medical explanation
Look for hearing tests at entrance, during service and at separation; documented duties or incidents; and noise from later jobs or hobbies. A normal separation test does not tell the whole medical story, and a noisy civilian job is not by itself a complete answer either. The clinician should explain how the test data and your history support the opinion. VA's claims manual concedes noise exposure for many duty positions; the tinnitus denial guide explains that listing, and a service noise timeline helps when your duties are not on it.
You or a witness can describe the noise you worked around and the hearing trouble you noticed. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a), medical diagnoses and opinions require medical expertise, while lay evidence covers what a person observed. The hearing-loss condition guide covers ratings; this page is about a denied claim for service connection.
A real remand: the VA opinion leaned on missing records
In Board decision A25094396, October 30, 2025, VA had already accepted a hearing-loss diagnosis and hazardous noise exposure from the veteran's work as an aircraft maintainer. Compared with his 1985 entrance exam, a December 1986 hearing test showed threshold shifts in both ears, and his 1989 separation exam showed shifts at every frequency in the left ear and all but one in the right. The April 2024 VA examiner still gave a negative opinion, saying there were no "significant changes" in service and no hearing complaints in the service records.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) found the opinion inadequate for three reasons. It "impermissibly relied on the absence of records corroborating" the hearing loss to conclude there was no relationship to service. It did not explain why the changes between the entrance and separation tests were not significant. And it relied on literature that conceded there was "insufficient evidence" about delayed hearing loss, without explaining how that supported a negative conclusion. The Board's instructions reminded the next clinician that "a lack of evidence or medical documentation cannot be corroborating to conclude that there is no relationship" between the disability and service.
A favorable private opinion did not settle the issue either, because it gave a conclusion without analysis the Board could weigh. The hearing-loss issue was remanded for a new opinion, not granted. When you read your own denial, check whether the negative opinion rests on silence in your records, and whether any favorable opinion explains its reasoning.
Hearing-test and decision comparison sheet
| Question | Right ear, date, page | Left ear, date, page | What the decision says |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hz | |||
| Maryland CNC score, if used | |||
| Which § 3.385 gate, if any, was addressed? | |||
| Service noise or injury accepted? | |||
| Entrance and separation tests compared? | |||
| Later noise or other explanations weighed? | |||
| Does the opinion rely on missing records? | |||
| Clinician's link opinion and actual reasoning | |||
| Relevant record missing from the evidence list? |
Keep each ear separate. Do not calculate a VA percentage from this table: the § 3.385 definition and the later rating method are different steps. Note any older audiogram's units and missing frequencies for professional review rather than converting values yourself.
What Claim Raven's Board data shows for hearing loss
In Claim Raven's analysis of 2024 to 2025 Board decisions, hearing loss was a decided issue in 1,111 condition records: 21.5% favorable, 47.2% denied and 31.3% remanded, the lowest favorable share among the conditions covered in this denial series. Among 135 denied hearing-loss records with a classified reason, 55.6% were denied for no medical link to service and 38.5% because service connection was not shown. Because these appeals were already disputed, the figures show patterns at the Board, not your chances. For a case where an aircrewman with conceded noise exposure still lost, see this Board case breakdown.
Respond to the gap that is actually in the letter
If a new audiology test or a missing service record bears on the denied issue, that is new evidence for a Supplemental Claim. If VA relied on an opinion that leaned on missing records or ignored your in-service test shifts, a Higher-Level Review looks at the same record for that kind of error. Your letter and VA's decision review FAQ give the deadline for each option. If the denial says there is no link to service, the no-nexus guide helps sort out whether the missing piece is a record, a factual correction or medical reasoning.
To see the audiology passage and the denial reason side by side, Claim Raven's Raven Eye tool, offered on this page, can explain each beside the original text. Claim Raven sells the tool; it cannot read an audiogram for you or replace an audiologist.
Sources and scope
Checked September 23, 2026: 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 and § 3.159 (eCFR, current through August 27, 2026); Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993); VA's decision review pages linked above; and Board decision A25094396. The fictional measurements only illustrate how to read a report.
Military Noise Exposure Evidence for a VA Hearing Loss or Tinnitus Claim
When the Board Splits the Baby: BVA A25037997 and the Brutal Logic of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385
Asthma Evidence for a VA Claim: Medication History and Breathing Tests