Citation Nr: 18143070 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 15-35 299 DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for infertility is denied. FINDING OF FACT At no time during the pendency of the claim has the evidence of record indicated that the Veteran had a diagnosis of infertility or a disability manifested by infertility. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for infertility have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from June 1989 to June 1993. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board at his local VA office. The hearing was scheduled for October 2, 2018; however, the Veteran failed to report and did not request that the hearing be rescheduled. Service Connection The Veteran contends that he contracted a sexually transmitted disease during service, that service personnel failed to treat it in a timely manner, and that the delay in treatment caused infertility. 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. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. For service connection, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a veteran has a disability at the time he files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). However, when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a veteran filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). After reviewing the evidence, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of infertility, or a disability manifested by infertility, and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 294; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran had a VA examination in August 2013. At that time, the examiner noted the Veteran’s diagnosis of chlamydia during service but found no current symptoms or diagnoses related to the male reproductive system. The Veteran reported infertility by history and the examiner ordered a semen analysis test to be completed outside of the VA medical center. Unfortunately, while the Veteran contends that he completed the testing, his test results are not associated with the claims file and cannot be found. In February 2018, the RO notified the Veteran that the VA medical center could not find records showing that a semen analysis had been conducted. The RO also noted that the Veteran had reported treatment for infertility, and asked the Veteran to complete an authorization and release form for VA to obtain his records. The Veteran did not respond. Since the Veteran’s semen analysis was unavailable, the RO requested another examination. In May 2018, the RO notified the Veteran that a private medical facility would be contacting him to schedule an examination and that if he failed to report for the examination without good cause, his claim would be rated based on the evidence of record or even denied. Despite the notice from VA, the Veteran failed to report for the examination. He did not request that the examination be rescheduled and has not provided good cause for failing to report. While the Veteran believes he is infertile due to an event during service, he is not competent to diagnose infertility or identify the underlying cause of infertility, to include any relationship to service. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education, testing, and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. The Board acknowledges that August 2012 VA treatment records show report of testicular pain and a provisional diagnosis of unspecified testicular dysfunction. However, a confirmed diagnosis was not indicated and no testicular abnormalities were found on examination in August 2013. Further, the treatment records do not indicate that the testicular pain or provisional diagnosis were in any way related to service, to include the Veteran’s diagnosis and treatment of chlamydia during service. Therefore, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record fails to demonstrate a current diagnosis of infertility or a disability manifesting as infertility at any point during the pendency of the claim. While the Board has also considered the Court’s holding in Romanowsky, there is no probative evidence of a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran’s claim. Continued on Next Page Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for infertility must be denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. K. A. KENNERLY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Alderman, Amanda G.