Hearing Loss: Military Entrace Vs. Miltary Flight & Exit Exams

[buzzard]

I just received my Military Personnel File from NPRC (well, not quite the entire file...) Anyways, I have three "Report of Medical Examination"s. Can someone decipher the #70. Hearing & #71 Auditometer sections...This may prove hearing loss....Here goes:

10/1968 - #5. Purpose of Exam: RA, #70. Hearing (nothing in these boxes), #71. Audiometer: Right: 250 (nothing in this box), 500 C, 1000 C , 2000 C, 3000 (nothing in this box), 4000 10, 6000 (nothing in this box), 8000 (nothing in this box). Left: 250 (nothing in this box), 500 0, 1000 C, 2000 S (or 5), 3000 (nothing in this box), 4000 0, 6 (nothing in this box),, 8 (nothing in this box

8/1971 - #5 Purpose of Exam: Class II Flight Physical, #70, Hearing ( "N/A" typed in middle of this section, #71. Audiometer: Right: 250 x, 500 5, 1000 0, 2000 0, 3000 0, 4000 10, 6000 5, 8000 x. Left: 250 x, 500 5, 1000 0, 2000 0, 3000 5, 4000 20, 6000 60, 8000 x.

10/1971. #5 Purpose of Exam: ETS. #70 Hearing: Right WV 15, Left WV 15. #71. Audiometer (nothing in any of these boxes).

On the Flight Physical. #74. Summary of Defects: 7/14 color blindness. #77. Examinee is NOT qualified for... Class III Flight Status

ALSO, On the 10/1971, there was noted an "infection in eyes" on first page #24.

On another note, on the "Enlisted Qualification Record" and "Enlistment Contract" have "my signature" that ARE NOT MY SIGNATURE. Also, the "Recor'd of Proceedings Under Article 15 UCMJ" is a pack of freakin' lies (I did, however, sign (yes, MY genuine signature) the "Acknowledgement"s of both Notification and Imposition, but have no recollection of ever reading the Proceedings, and would not have signed, if I did. There is such a difference in the signatures that a kindergartener could see it....

There are so many discrepancies and typos in my file...somethings are crossed out, or blacked out, as well....UUGHHHHHHH

[broncovet]

Buzzard

I looked at your Audio numbers. Even tho you have a 60 decibel loss at 6000 mhz and 20 decibel loss at 4000, mhz, the VA uses an Average loss. If you average 5,0,0,20 and 60, I get an average of 17 decibel loss for your poorest hearing ear. Your better ear is less. (To figure it out add these up and divide by 5). The VA does not use the 250 or the 8000 numbers for averaging, unless they changed it.

My average is 55 decibel loss, (for both ears) which is much, much worse than your 17 decibel average, and I only got 0% for a long time then they increased it to 10%. (I can not even watch a movie or TV without Closed Captioning).

IMHO you should apply for benefits for hearing loss, if you havent already. To get Service connected, your audiologist will need to say something in the report similar to "Veterans hearing loss is most likely (or at least as likely as not) due to noise exposure during military service"

If you get service connection for hearing loss, it will likely be at zero percent, until/unless your hearing loss worsens. Hearing loss almost never gets better, it always gets worse over time.

If you have ringing in the ears, you may get tinnitus, usually rated at 10%.

Briefly, to explain hearing loss in decibels, it is a logarithmic progression not an arithmetic progression. This means a 50 decibel loss is ten times worse than a 40 decibel loss, a 45 decibel loss is 5 times worse than a 40 decibel loss, etc.

Your hearing definately got worse from 1968 to 1971, according to the numbers you posted.

Edited October 4, 2010 by broncovet

[buzzard]

Buzzard

I looked at your Audio numbers. Even tho you have a 60 decibel loss at 6000 mhz and 20 decibel loss at 4000, mhz, the VA uses an Average loss. If you average 5,0,0,20 and 60, I get an average of 17 decibel loss for your poorest hearing ear. Your better ear is less. (To figure it out add these up and divide by 5). The VA does not use the 250 or the 8000 numbers for averaging, unless they changed it.

My average is 55 decibel loss, (for both ears) which is much, much worse than your 17 decibel average, and I only got 0% for a long time then they increased it to 10%. (I can not even watch a movie or TV without Closed Captioning).

IMHO you should apply for benefits for hearing loss, if you havent already. To get Service connected, your audiologist will need to say something in the report similar to "Veterans hearing loss is most likely (or at least as likely as not) due to noise exposure during military service"

If you get service connection for hearing loss, it will likely be at zero percent, until/unless your hearing loss worsens. Hearing loss almost never gets better, it always gets worse over time.

If you have ringing in the ears, you may get tinnitus, usually rated at 10%.

Briefly, to explain hearing loss in decibels, it is a logarithmic progression not an arithmetic progression. This means a 50 decibel loss is ten times worse than a 40 decibel loss, a 45 decibel loss is 5 times worse than a 40 decibel loss, etc.

Your hearing definately got worse from 1968 to 1971, according to the numbers you posted.

Thanks so much for your answer. So therefore, it seems it got a little worse from the war.....Now, my hearing is much worse, and I have been waiting a month now to get an appointment for an audio test -- the local VAOC tells me I have to go to a VAMC and "they should be calling you soon to make an appointment". And yes, I definetly have the ringing in my ears, which is one of the reasons I started my VA quest last month as it has gotten to the point that sometimes I can't sleep or think straight....even my personal ENT told me that it is most likely caused by my Army/VN service, and has put same in his notes.....

[Doug]

When I received my SMR's from ST Louis , I found in the exit physical that the Dr stated in his notes that I had "bilateral hi frequency hearing loss". I also have constant tinnitus in both ears. The VA service connected the hearing loss at 0% and the tinnitus at 10%. They agreed that my hearing problems were caused by exposure to the noise of the Huey engines and rotor blades. Hearing protection wasn't considered too important in my part of Nam.