Citation Nr: A21017403 Decision Date: 10/27/21 Archive Date: 10/27/21 DOCKET NO. 190530-23239 DATE: October 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on loss of use of a creative organ is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is not a service-connected disability nor shown to be due to a service-connected disability; hence, entitlement to SMC based on the loss of use of a creative organ is not warranted. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing entitlement to SMC for loss of use of a creative organ are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114(k), 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.350, 3.655. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1976 to December 1996. The Board notes that the VA Form 10182 received in May 2019 did not list any specific rating decision or any issue from a rating decision. However, in December 2019, the Veteran's representative submitted an informal hearing presentation (IHP) arguing for entitlement to special monthly compensation. As such, the May 2019 Form 10182 has been accepted as pertaining to that specific issue. The rating decision on appeal was issued in April 2019 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In the May 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. 1. Entitlement to SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ. VA law provides that special monthly compensation is warranted if a veteran, as the result of service-connected disability, has suffered the anatomical loss or loss of use of one or more creative organs. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a). The record indicates the Veteran has a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. Here, there is no competent evidence of record with respect to an in-service event, injury, or disease, or any evidence that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is associated with his service. The Board recognizes that the Veteran has not been given an examination or opinion; however, the Board finds that no examination is warranted under the duty to assist given the absence of any in service event, injury, or disease, and the lack of any indication of a nexus between this condition and the Veteran's active service. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. These four factors are: (1) whether there is competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) whether there is evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or evidence establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumption period; (3) whether there is an indication that the disability or symptoms may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability; and (4) whether there otherwise is sufficient competent medical evidence of record to make a decision on the claim. See, McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4). The evidence shows that the Veteran separated from active duty in December 1996. Private treatment records indicate the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February 2017 and underwent radical prostatectomy in July 2017. A September 2018 private treatment record from Dr. A.L. notes the Veteran had diagnoses of malignant tumor of prostate and impotence of organic origin for which he was prescribed Viagra. The doctor stated that it is "more than likely secondary to prostatectomy." Service connection, however, is not in effect for prostate cancer. Since it is not been shown that erectile dysfunction is due to a service-connected disability nor service-connected itself, the claim for SMC for loss of use of a creative organ lacks is not warranted. Therefore, the Veteran's claim for SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ is denied. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Keeley, Brian 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.