Citation Nr: 18141072 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 14-40 496 DATE: October 9, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s erectile dysfunction is not manifested by both loss of erectile power and penile deformity. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, Diagnostic Code 7522. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1965 to June 1985. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In a January 2016 rating decision, the Veteran was assigned service connection for vertigo with a 30 percent rating. He has not disagreed with the assigned rating. As such, this issue is no longer on appeal. See Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 176 (2009). 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. While the Board typically considers only those factors contained wholly in the rating criteria, it is appropriate to consider factors outside the specific rating criteria when appropriate in order to best determine the level of occupational and social impairment. Where there is a question as to which of two separate evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria required for that particular rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The Veteran is currently assigned a noncompensable rating for his erectile dysfunction. In a November 2014 statement, the Veteran asserted that he has a penis characterized by deformity with the loss of erectile power, which he states is shown by VA treatment records. The rating criteria provide that a 20 percent evaluation is assignable for deformity of the penis with loss of erectile power. This rating is the maximum assignable under 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, DC 7522. Where the schedule does not provide a compensable evaluation for a diagnostic code, a noncompensable evaluation will be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for his condition in October 2011. The examiner noted that the Veteran has become completely impotent since a 2001 prostate cancer surgery. He is unable to have an erection, penetration, or ejaculation. All medications and treatments have been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, a physical examination revealed a normal penis and scrotal contents. There was also no noted testicular atrophy. The Veteran’s examination is consistent with a previous July 2003 VA examination that indicated normal external male genitalia. The Board notes that although the Veteran has generally alleged that he has a penile deformity, he has not explained why he thinks he has a penile deformity. A careful review of VA medical records demonstrates treatment for erectile dysfunction, but makes no mention of any penile deformity. There is no medical evidence of penile deformity, either internal or external. Given the absence of evidence of a deformed penis, the weight of the evidence is therefore against the claim and a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction is not warranted. The Board has also considered whether any other ratings are appropriate for the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction. Impairment of this type is compensated by special monthly compensation (SMC) at the statutory rate for loss of use of a creative organ under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k). As the Veteran already receives SMC for loss of use of a creative organ, further consideration is unwarranted. In considering the appropriate disability rating for the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction, the Board has considered the Veteran’s statements that his disability is worse than the rating he currently receives. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of his disabilities according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (“although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify”). On the other hand, such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined him during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings directly address the criteria under which erectile dysfunction is evaluated. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Borman, Associate Counsel