Citation Nr: 21012292 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 14-16 594 DATE: March 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction (ED) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s ED is manifested by penile deformity with a loss of erectile power. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction (ED) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.3, 4.79, 4.115b, 4.119, Diagnostic Code 7522. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1990 to April 1992. This matter returns to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) following the issuance of a February 2020 remand decision from the Board which directed the Regional Office (RO) to conduct additional development. Increased Rating The Veteran has submitted claims for higher rating for his service-connected ED. He contends that this disability is not adequately compensated by the currently assigned rating, he has not alleged worsening. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which assigns ratings based on the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In any increased rating claim, different ratings can be assigned for different periods of time in a practice known as "staged ratings." See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). 1. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction (ED) Throughout the period on appeal the Veteran’s ED has been assigned a noncompensable rating under DC 7522. The Veteran’s service-connected ED is currently rated as noncompensable under DC 7522 for penis deformity, with loss of erectile power. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.115(b). He is also in receipt of special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k) based on loss of use of a creative organ. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, DC 7913, Note (1). In order to receive a compensable rating, other than SMC, for erectile dysfunction it must also be shown that there is penile deformity. 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, DC 7522. The Board observes that the Veteran’s private and VA treatment records, as well as the VA examination conducted in February 2020, all indicate that the Veteran has erectile dysfunction. However, the Board finds that there is no evidence of any testicular or penile deformities. In fact, at the February 2020 VA examination, the Veteran specifically denied a physical examination of his penis and testes and affirmatively denied any sort of deformity of either. Therefore, absent sufficient evidence of penile deformity, even though there is erectile dysfunction, a compensable rating is not warranted under DC 7522. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. As an initial matter, the Board notes the statement from the Veteran’s representative that the rating schedule does not provide a definition for a penile deformity. Because VA had not expressly defined the term “deformity” in Diagnostic Code 7522, “The Court will therefore assign the ordinary meaning to this word. See Williams v. Wilkie, No. 16-3252, slip op. (U.S. Vet. App. Aug. 7, 2018) (panel decision). A “deformity” is a “distortion of any part or general disfigurement of the body.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 478 (32d ed. 2012) (hereinafter DORLAND’S). DORLAND’S further defines various types of internal and external deformities. Id.” Williams v. Wilkie. Based on this reasoning “[t]he Court therefore holds that ‘deformity’ under DC 7522 means a distortion of the penis, either internal or external.” Id. As an additional matter, although the Board has found that a compensable rating is not warranted for this disability, he does receive special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k). He is in fact receiving some compensation for this disability. In considering the appropriate disability rating, the Board has also considered the statements from the Veteran that his service-connected disability should receive compensation. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (“although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify”). It is important to note that the Veteran specifically denied the presence of any penile or testicular deformity and denied a medical examination. If there was such a deformity present, he would be presumed credible in reporting it, accordingly, his affirmative denial should be given the same weight. As such, the Veteran’s ED cannot be granted a compensable rating and his appeal is denied. 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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Q. Hernan, Associate Counsel