Citation Nr: 21011640 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 19-14 121 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED), to include as a result of the service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder, is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on loss of use of a creative organ is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had periods of active service from March 1964 to March 1967 and from June 1967 to May 1973. Service connection for ED SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ The Veteran seeks entitlement to these interrelated benefits. In July 2020 correspondence (responding to the most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC)), the Veteran appears to have indicated that he believes that his ED condition is the result of his service-connected psychiatric condition, the medication that he takes for this condition, or his in-service exposure to tactical herbicide agents. As the Veteran is known to have had service in the Republic of Vietnam, his exposure to tactical herbicide agents is presumed. An opinion on this matter (as to whether the Veteran’s ED condition is at least as likely as not related to this exposure) is not included in the claims folder. Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s ED is at least as likely as not related to his presumed in-service exposure to tactical herbicide agents. A complete rationale must be provided and may not rely solely on the fact that the Veteran’s condition is not presumed by VA regulations to be related to exposure to tactical herbicide agents. 2. Once the development in the previous paragraph has been completed, along with any other development that may be indicated as a result, readjudicate the claims for service connection for ED and for SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ. Provide the Veteran and his representative with a responsive SSOC and the requisite time to respond, and then, if the claims are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, return them to the Board for further appellate review. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Steven H. Johnston, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.