Citation Nr: 18153039 Decision Date: 11/27/18 Archive Date: 11/26/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 429 DATE: November 27, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a right groin condition, also claimed as erectile dysfunction (ED) is denied. FINDING OF FACT A right groin condition, also claimed as ED did not originate during or because of active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for a right groin condition, also claimed as ED, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from March 1979 to March 1983. Entitlement to service connection for a right groin condition, also claimed as ED Service connection may be granted for current disability arising from disease or injury incurred or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In an April 1982 service treatment record (STR), the Veteran was seen with complaints of a small bump in his groin area. The clinician noted that the bump appeared to be a small lymph node. There is no evidence of follow up visits regarding groin pain and/or a bump in his groin area. In the Veteran’s March 1983 examination for service separation, he was noted to have no relevant groin complaints, treatments, or diagnoses and his G-U system was reported as normal. These medical records are highly probative both as to the Veteran’s subjective reports and their resulting objective findings. They were generated with a view towards ascertaining the Veteran’s then-state of physical fitness and are akin to statements of diagnosis or treatment. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 73 (1997) (observing that although formal rules of evidence do not apply before the Board, recourse to the Federal Rules of Evidence may be appropriate if it assists in the articulation of the reasons for the Board’s decision); see also LILLY’S: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, 2nd Ed. (1987), pp. 245-46 (many state jurisdictions, including the federal judiciary and Federal Rule 803(4), expand the hearsay exception for physical conditions to include statements of past physical condition on the rationale that statements made to physicians for purposes of diagnosis and treatment are exceptionally trustworthy since the declarant has a strong motive to tell the truth in order to receive proper care). A December 2014 treatment note indicated that the Veteran had a male erectile disorder and he was provided with samples of Cialis. In a July 2016 lay statement, the Veteran reported going to sick call approximately three times with complaints of right groin pain and pain during intercourse. The Veteran noted continued pain during, and immediately following intercourse. The Veteran reported that he was diagnosed with a strained testicle and his pain had been present for 30 years. The Board has considered the Veteran’s assertions that his right groin condition is caused by his military service. The Veteran is not competent, however, to offer an opinion as to the etiology of this type of medical condition due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462 (2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). A preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s right groin condition originated during service. The Veteran was seen once in-service with a swollen lymph node in his groin area with no follow up treatment or complaints. The Veteran’s examination for service separation was silent for reports groin conditions, treatment, or diagnoses and his G-U system was noted to be normal. The Veteran was seen for his right groin and accompanying erectile dysfunction, many years after service separation, and there is no competent medical evidence that the Veteran’s right groin condition began in or because of service. Therefore, service connection is not warranted and the claim is denied. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joshua Wozniak