Citation Nr: 22036680 Decision Date: 06/24/22 Archive Date: 06/24/22 DOCKET NO. 20-15 966A DATE: June 24, 2022 ORDER Service connection for sterility, to include as due to exposure to radiation, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had sterility at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for sterility 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 had service from July 1950 to July 1953 to include in the Korean War. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2012 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2016, the Board remanded the appeal for issuance of a Statement of the Case and to afford the Veteran the opportunity to perfect an appeal on the issue. See Remand BVA or CAVC (June 2016); Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). The RO issued in April 2020 an SOC to the Veteran, and the Veteran responded with a timely substantive appeal to the Board. See SOC (April 2020) & VA Form 9 (April 2020). The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the Board's prior remand directives. Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999). Service connection for sterility, to include as due to exposure to radiation The Veteran is seeking service connection for sterility, which he claims is due to radiation poisoning in service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to ionizing radiation in March or April of 1953 when he was chosen to witness the explosion of the atom blast in Nevada. See VA 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim (January 2012); Correspondence (February 2012). His daughter was born in 1955, and he was unable to have any other children. Alternatively, he contends that, during a surgery for service-connected tuberculosis, he was overexposed to x-ray radiation resulting in sterilization. See Correspondence (February 2012, October 2012). 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). 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. The Board concludes that the weight of the persuasive competent, credible evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has or has had claimed disability at any time during or approximate to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Service treatment records (STRs) reflect clinically normal genitourinary system on separation from service in 1953. See STR (June 2014). Though the Veteran reported frequent or painful urination on separation, STRs reflect no findings for sterility or fertility abnormality. Further, post service medical record, both VA and private, reflect no complaints or findings for sterility or infertility, or laboratory findings as to the Veteran's sperm count. The only evidence relating to sterility are the lay statements of the Veteran and his daughter. Under certain circumstances, lay statements may support a claim by showing the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability, or symptoms of disability that are capable of lay observation. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994) (finding lay evidence is competent if provided by a person with knowledge of the facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a person without specialized knowledge or training); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). However, neither is competent to assess whether the Veteran is sterile, has low sperm count, or genitourinary defect effecting reproduction as this required knowledge of the genitourinary and male reproductive system, to include diseases or defects. It is noted that the ability to biologically reproduce in humans requires an egg cell from a woman to be fertilized by a sperm cell from a man; hence, the Veteran is not competent to report that any trouble procreating was due to his personal sterility as opposed to other impediments to include that of a partner. A "current disability" means a disability shown by competent medical evidence to exist. See Chelte v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 268 (1997). A review of the totality of the evidence does not show that the Veteran has a current disability. It is noted that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). In the absence of proof of a present disability due to in service disease or injury, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). On balance, the weight of the persuasive evidence is against the claim. Accordingly, the claim is denied. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, No. 2020-2067, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37307 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2021). C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Edwards 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.