Citation Nr: 21030704 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 19-38 188 DATE: May 19, 2021 ORDER Service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that erectile dysfunction began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for erectile dysfunction are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1961 to June 1963. The Veteran testified at a February 2020 videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ); a copy of the transcript is of record. In May 2020, the undersigned VLJ dismissed a September 2019 appeal as improperly under the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). The December 2019 legacy appeal, however, is properly before the Board. Service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. The Veteran contends erectile dysfunction related to service. He has not related it to his service-connected disabilities of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, or to any other claimed disability. During his hearing, he related it to "cancer." The claim was received by VA in August 2018. 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 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. While he may have erectile dysfunction, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. There are no medical opinions in the record to support the Veteran's claim. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of erectile dysfunction, the Veteran testified in February 2020 that the symptoms began after cancer surgery ten years prior to the hearing, which would have been more than four decades after separation. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Veteran has not been service connected for any cancer. The Veteran is not otherwise competent to relate erectile dysfunction to service, given the late diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) While the Veteran believes the erectile dysfunction is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, the Board reiterates that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against findings that an in-service injury, event, or disease occurred. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Service treatment records show a congenital condition, but otherwise "normal" clinical evaluations of the Veteran's genitourinary system in March 1961, July 1961, and June 1963. The Veteran's March 1961 Report of Medical Examination showed "1st. degree hyposadias [sic] without stenosis of external urethral meatus." Hypospadias is a birth defect (congenital condition) in which the opening of the urethra is on the underside of the penis instead of at the tip. The urethra is the tube through which urine drains from the bladder and exits your body. Hypospadias, Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypospadias/symptoms-causes/syc-20355148 (last visited May 18, 2021). July 19, 1961 urine test was positive for albumin, but a July 20, 1961 followup test was negative. May 2017 through September 2018 VA treatment records did not show complaints of erectile dysfunction. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, the Board finds that the preponderance of evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, and it is denied. As the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board James Hekel 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.