Citation Nr: 21005112 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-33 731 DATE: January 29, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, is granted. FINDING OF FACT After resolving reasonable doubt, the Board concludes that the Veteran has erectile dysfunction secondary to service-connected diabetes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for erectile dysjunction as secondary to service-connected diabetes have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to December 1968. The matter is on appeal before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from an April 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2020, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript is associated with the evidentiary record. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, is granted. The Veteran has contended that his claimed erectile dysfunction is related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. See February 2016 Fully Developed Claim. In a November 2015 VA examination for diabetes mellitus, the VA examiner concluded that the medical record showed no evidence of erectile dysfunction. Subsequently in a February 2016 diabetes mellitus disability benefits questionnaire, the Veteran’s private physician opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction is due to diabetes mellitus. During the hearing, the Veteran confirmed that he had erectile dysfunction. The Board concludes that after resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the evidence is at least in equipoise that he has erectile dysfunction as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. Accordingly, the claim is granted. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Hammad Rasul, Associate Counsel 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.