Citation Nr: 21063204 Decision Date: 10/13/21 Archive Date: 10/13/21 DOCKET NO. 18-11 990 DATE: October 13, 2021 ORDER Service connection for left varicocele is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence shows that the Veteran incurred his left varicocele in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left varicocele have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b) (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a) (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1987 to December 2016. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Service connection for left varicocele is granted. The Veteran asserts that his left varicole disability was incurred in service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that began during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). An October 2018 postservice treatment record includes a diagnosis of left varicocele. During service, the Veteran was seen for complaints of left varicocele. In a January 2014 service treatment record (STR), he complained of left sided testicular pain for two to three months; a solid cyst near the epididymis was noted. Slightly more than a week later, a large left varicocele was diagnosed, which corresponded to his area of symptoms. His August 2016 retirement report of medical history did not include any complaints regarding his left varicocele. An October 2016 separation health assessment noted that there was no diagnosis of a testicular condition since there was no pathology to render a diagnosis. The Board notes, however, that no physical exam was conducted. According to the examination report, this was per the Veteran's request; he reported normal anatomy with no deformity or abnormality of the penis, testes, or epididymis. In his February 2018 VA Form 9, substantive appeal, however, he explained that he did not refuse to be examined. Instead, he was asked if there was any change to the pain or discomfort in his testicular condition, to which he replied no. "It is possible that he interpreted [the Veteran's] comments as that [he] did not display any outward signs of discomfort and that further examination was not required." The examiner explained to him that there were no corrective measures available and that pain management was the prescribed course of action. In his October 2017 notice of disagreement, the Veteran stated that he experienced left sided testicular pain near the site of a previous vasectomy, which resulted in a 2014 diagnosis of large left varicocele. He has continued to experience "constant discomfort and periodically experiences sharp pain in the left side testicular area described." In his February 2018 VA Form 9, substantive appeal, he explained that he did not mention this disability on his separation report of medical history because the form did not have a specific location that addressed this specific type of discomfort; additionally, the condition was already noted in his medical record and it may have been that he was not in any "significant discomfort and had relegated it to the back of [his] mind." Considering the Veteran's written statements and sworn testimony of continued left varicocele pain since service and the diagnosis of left varicocele in service and post-service, the Board finds that there is no question that the Veteran's left varicocele began during service and has continued since. Accordingly, service connection for left varicocele is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Matta, 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.