Citation Nr: 21069918 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-07 116 DATE: November 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for detrusor-external sphincter dyssynergia (DESD), also claimed as dysuria, anal stricture, and tight sphincter, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record establishes that the Veteran's DESD is etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for DESD are 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 in the United States Army from September 1983 to March 1984, with additional service in the Army Reserve. The Veteran appeared and testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge (VLJ) in November 2021. At the Veteran's hearing, the Veteran clarified that the issue for which he was seeking service connection was DESD. This appeared to be his desire when he originally contacted VA looking for information about service connection. See VBMS, document labeled Correspondence, receipt date April 9, 2014. Thus, the claim of service connection has been recharacterized as stated on the title page. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for DESD The Veteran contends that his DESD is etiologically related to service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The Veteran has a current diagnosis of DESD. Further, he has testified that during service, in his duties as a paratrooper, he had several bad landings, to include landing on his back, and that in particular, his last jump was quite bad. While his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge, confirms a military occupational specialty as Tactical Wire Operations Specialist, additional personnel records confirm his completion of Airborne School and receipt of the Parachutist Badge. Thus, the first two elements of service connection, a current diagnosis and an in-service event, have been met. Shedden, supra. Turning to whether there is a relationship between service and the DESD, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) demonstrate that he complained of urinary problems, particularly a difficulty in voiding. Further, the Veteran's post-service medical records demonstrate that he complained of urinary problems from service to the present. The Veteran attended a VA examination in October 2015, but the record was not associated with the file until January 2016. A VA examiner performed an in-person examination, considered the Veteran's history, and gave a medical opinion stating that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's DESD is etiologically related to the complaints the Veteran had in service. In support thereof, the clinician stated that because DESD is difficult to diagnosis, may be confused with other conditions, and may cause rare urine infections, the probative evidence supported that the condition first became manifest during service and continued to the present. Thereafter, a different VA clinician provided an opinion finding that the DESD was not related to service. In support thereof, the clinician noted that while the Veteran's STRs demonstrate complaints of dysuria and a possible UTI, DESD is normally related to a spinal cord injury, but there was no record of the injury. The Board gives the first VA opinion great probative weight because it is based on an in-person examination and reviewed the Veteran's pertinent medical records. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). As for the second VA opinion, the clinician did not consider the Veteran's report of a bad parachute jump. However, a bad parachute jump would align with the clinician's opinion that DESD might result from a spinal cord injury. Thus, the Board gives the opinion less probative weight, but finds that it lends support to the first VA opinion. Therefore, considering the evidence of record, the criteria for service connection for DESD has been met. Accordingly, the claim is granted. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. M. Hitchcock 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.