Citation Nr: 21062868
Decision Date: 10/12/21	Archive Date: 10/12/21

DOCKET NO. 17-46 030
DATE: October 12, 2021

ORDER

Service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied.

 

 

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is not related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for erectile dysfunction are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1978 to January 1986.

The case is on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision.

The Board notes that the Veteran raised the issue of compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for erectile dysfunction as a result of VA medical treatment in a February 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD) and an August 2017 VA Form 9.  As this claim has not yet been adjudicated, and it is separate and distinct from the present service connection claim, it is referred to the RO for appropriate action.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.20, 20.104.

The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record.  See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008).

 

Service connection for erectile dysfunction.

Legal Criteria

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.  A veteran seeking compensation under these provisions must establish three elements: "(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."  Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Analysis

The Veteran filed a claim of service connection for erectile dysfunction in February 2014.  However, in the February 2015 NOD and the August 2017 VA Form 9, he reported that this disability is not service connected.

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not account for treatment for or reports of experiencing erectile dysfunction during service.  Also, the STRs show that in January 1986, the Veteran chose not to undergo a separation examination.  

The Veteran's post-service treatment records show a history erectile dysfunction since August 2010.

The Board finds that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is not related to service.  In this regard, other than the Veteran listing the claimed disability on the initial claim form, there is no evidence even indicating the condition had its onset during service or is related to service.  To this extent, the Veteran has not provided any assertions regarding the service connection claim for erectile dysfunction.  In fact, the Veteran reported that the disability is not service connected.  (As noted in the above, an § 1151 claim has been referred for adjudication.)

Although a VA examination or opinion was not provided in connection with this claim, the Board finds that an examination is not necessary to decide the claim.  The Veteran has not asserted a specific theory to entitlement.  Merely making a claim is insufficient to indicate a nexus to service and one is not reasonably raised by the record.  See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d, 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  Therefore, an examination or opinion regarding a nexus to service for erectile dysfunction is not warranted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006).

Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence shows that erectile dysfunction is not related to service.  In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, that doctrine is not applicable.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  Therefore, service connection for erectile dysfunction is not warranted.

 

 

RYAN T. KESSEL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Nevarez-Myrick, Nancy

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.