Citation Nr: 20007812 Decision Date: 01/31/20 Archive Date: 01/29/20 DOCKET NO. 17-48 996 Service connection DATE: January 31, 2020 ORDER Service connection for left varicocele, claimed as a left testicle condition, is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, he incurred a left testicle condition, diagnosed as left varicocele, during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left varicocele are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5017; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran has active service from October 2010 to October 2014. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) at a January 2020 hearing, seated at the VA Regional Office (RO). A transcript of the hearing is included in the claims file. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for left varicocele, claimed as a left testicle condition. Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection can be demonstrated for a disease diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). In order to establish service connection, the evidence must generally 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995). A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the RO had developed this claim as a claim of entitlement to service connection for a left testicle condition, to include as secondary to service-connected overactive bladder. The RO acted as such resultant to the Veteran’s June 2015 claim and July 2016 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) asserting entitlement on this basis. However, in his September 2017 Substantive Appeal, the Veteran asserted entitlement to service connection for a left testicle condition on a direct basis reporting that such was incurred during service in 2012. The Board herein grants service connection on a direct basis and further discussion of whether any left testicle condition is secondary to service-connected overactive bladder is not required. The Veteran, in his September 2017 Substantive Appeal, as noted, asserts that his left testicle condition is directly related to service. He reported that he sought compensation for this condition within eight months of separation from service due to his pain. He reported that he had experienced the condition since 2012, however, he failed to report such during service out of fear of repercussions from his unit as he had been previously treated for a sexually transmitted disease. He reported that he never followed up on the condition during service and reported it during VA treatment after separation from service in June 2015. During his January 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that during service, he was pushing a vehicle up a hill and felt pain in his left testicle and noticed a lump. He reported that he was embarrassed and did not seek treatment for such during service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a left testicle condition, and no party asserts otherwise. In June 2015, eight months after separation from service in October 2014, the Veteran presented for VA treatment and reported a very painful lump in the left testicle, for one and one-half years, about which he was uncomfortable talking. Later in June 2015, during VA treatment, the Veteran’s physician noted a history significant for scrotal and testicular discomfort on the left and diagnosed him with left varicocele by scrotal sonogram. In a September 2015 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), the examiner noted the Veteran’s diagnosis of left varicocele and discussed his report that he had left testicle pain and sensitivity in approximately 2012, during service, and did not seek medical attention at that time. It does not appear that the examiner was asked to render an etiological opinion as to whether the Veteran’s left varicocele was directly related to service. The first element required for service connection, the existence of a present disability, is met. The Veteran was diagnosed during VA treatment in June 2015with left varicocele. As noted, the Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a left testicle condition. However, most recently, during his January 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran has offered lay evidence of in-service symptoms of such, pain in the left testicle and a lump. The Veteran is competent to report his in-service experience pushing a vehicle up a hill and experiencing left testicular pain and noticing a left testicle lump; such are readily observable symptoms. He has offered a reasonable explanation for not seeking medical treatment for such during service. Layno, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470. There is no indication that the Veteran is not credible in this regard. Thus, resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the lay evidence offered is sufficient to establish the second element required for service connection, an in-service incurrence of a disease or injury. The third element required for service connection, a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, is also met. The Veteran reported, during his June 2015 VA treatment, that he had the lump with which he currently presented for one and one-half years. The Board has found the Veteran competent and credible in this regard. Id. As he sought VA treatment in June 2015, eight months after his separation from service in October 2014, and his left testicle lump was present one and one-half years prior to June 2015, the onset of his left testicle condition, diagnosed as left varicocele, was during service. (Continued on the next page) Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, as is required, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for left varicocele, claimed as a left testicle condition. As such, the claim is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.