Citation Nr: 18140206 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-40 766A DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. 2. The evidence of record fails to demonstrate a relationship between the Veteran’s military service and his diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for erectile dysfunction are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a) (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1980 to September 1983, from February 2003 to January 2004, from July 2004 to May 2005, and from September 2006 to May 2008, with additional service in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard. The Board also notes that the Veteran has perfected an appeal as to the following issues: entitlement to ratings in excess of 10 for service-connected right ankle cellulitis and left ankle cellulitis; entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea; entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder, recurrent; and entitlement to minimal lumbar spondylosis condition claimed as back condition. To date, however, these issues have not yet been certified to the Board by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), it appears the AOJ is still working on the issues. Therefore, the Board will not take jurisdiction of these issues at this time. Finally, following the issuance of the August 2016 supplemental statement of the case, additional evidence was added to the claims file; however, such evidence is not pertinent to the issues before the Board; therefore, the Board may proceed with the adjudication of the Veteran’s appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (2017). Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, or was caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. Although the Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, the evidence shows no current disability. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (service connection requires a current disability). A current disability is one shown at some time during the period beginning proximate to the date of claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 303 (2013). There is no documentation of any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to erectile dysfunction during service. Post-service treatment records are also silent regarding any complaints or treatment for erectile dysfunction. In fact, a June 2015 VA treatment record specifically notes that the Veteran did not suffer from sexual dysfunction. The Veteran has not provided any lay testimony to VA or to his treating physicians regarding any observed symptomatology potentially related to the claimed erectile dysfunction. The Board accordingly finds that the evidence does not establish a current disability, and there is no indication of any change since the June 2015 assessment. Accordingly, the Veteran does not exhibit a current erectile dysfunction disability. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328, 1332 (1997). Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. Therefore, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). VA treatment records show that the Veteran was not diagnosed with diabetes mellitus until March 2015, nearly seven years after his most recent separation from active duty service in May 2008. Furthermore, the Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, symptoms, or treatment associated with diabetes mellitus. There is no probative evidence or opinion of record that suggests a nexus between the Veteran’s military service and his diabetes mellitus. Indeed, none of the post-service medical treatment records reflect any such opinion or comment to that effect, and he has not intimated that any such evidence or opinion exists. While no medical opinion has been obtained as to whether the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus is related to his military service, the Board finds that one is not required. Specifically, there is no competent indication that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus may be related to service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Moreover, the Veteran’s mere contention that his diabetes mellitus is related to his military service is insufficient to trigger the duty to get an examination or opinion, much less to establish a link. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (an assertion that one condition caused another is insufficient to connect to trigger the duty to provide an examination). Finally, although lay persons are competent to report symptoms or other matters within their personal knowledge, and to provide opinions on some medical matters (see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011)), here, the specific matter of whether the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus is related to his military service is a complex medical matter that falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau, supra. Specifically, the question of causation of diabetes mellitus involves a medical subject concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. The Veteran is not shown to have the necessary training and expertise to provide a competent opinion as to the causes of diabetes mellitus, to include whether such had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, his military service. Therefore, in the absence of competent evidence indicating that his diabetes mellitus may be related to his military service, the preponderance of the evidence is against his claim. As such, reasonable doubt does not arise and his claim for service connection must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James R. Springer, Associate Counsel