Case A25032343

MARTIN B. PETERS · 2025 · Case ID: A25032343

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served intermittently from May 1977 to August 1988 during Peacetime, appeals a July 2021 rating decision. The appeal initially concerned entitlement to an increased rating for his left ankle and TDIU, but these issues were decided in a prior Board decision. The Veteran also appealed entitlement to SMC for statutory housebound beyond June 15, 2021, through June 30, 2022. During an April 2025 hearing, the Veteran unambiguously withdrew this SMC issue, leading to its dismissal by the Board. The Veteran also appealed denial of service connection for a penile condition as secondary to various conditions. However, the Board granted service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED), finding that the Veteran's penile issues began during service in 1980 and have continued since. The Board found the Veteran's lay testimony regarding the in-service onset and continuity of ED to be competent and credible. The VA treatment records confirmed the ED diagnosis and ongoing treatment. The Board applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine in granting service connection for ED.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

SMC - HOUSEBOUND

Docket No.

210903-183013

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25032343
Decision Date: 04/08/25 Archive Date: 04/08/25

DOCKET NO. 210903-183013
DATE: April 8, 2025

ORDER

The appeal of entitlement to an extension of special monthly compensation (SMC) for statutory housebound beyond the period of June 15, 2021 through June 30, 2022, is dismissed.

Service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED) is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the April 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated his intent to withdraw the appeal of entitlement to an extension of SMC for statutory housebound beyond the period of June 15, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

2. The evidence demonstrates that the Veteran's ED is related to his active military service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for dismissal of the appeal for entitlement to an extension of SMC for statutory housebound beyond the period of June 15, 2021 through June 30, 2022, are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

2. The criteria for service connection for ED are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1977 to May 1980, from November 1980 to November 1983, and from October 1987 to August 1988, during Peacetime.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2021 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which in pertinent part, increased the left ankle disability to 100 percent effective June 15, 2021 and assigned an evaluation of 20 percent from July 1, 2022; granted SMC based on housebound from June 15, 2021 to July 1, 2022; and denied service connection for penile condition as secondary to high blood pressure, stress, PTSD, serious depression, anxiety and diabetes.

In the September 2021 Board Appeal: Notice of Disagreement, VA Form 10182, the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. The Veteran presented testimony at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2025. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. As such, the Board's review is limited to the evidence of record at the time of the decision on appeal (July 28, 2021), and any evidence submitted at the Board hearing (April 3, 2025), wherein the Veteran waived the additional 90 days for evidence submission. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. The Board cannot consider (1) evidence submitted during the period after the decision on appeal and before the Board hearing (July 29, 2021 through April 2, 2025), or (2) evidence submitted after the Board hearing (on or after April 4, 2025) as the Veteran waived the additional 90 days for evidence submission. Id.

If evidence was associated with the claims file during a period of time when additional evidence was not allowed, the Board has not considered it in its decision on the claims. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

As a final initial matter, in the September 2021 VA Form 10182, the Veteran attempted to appeal the issues of entitlement to an increased rating for his left ankle and entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability; however, those issues were subsequently decided in the Board's August 2023 decision. As such, those issues are no longer before the Board, and the Board need not address them further.

Dismissal of SMC for Statutory Housebound

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

In the September 2021 VA Form 10182, the Veteran indicated that he disagreed with the effective date and wanted an extension of payments for SMC. In the April 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that it was his intent to withdraw the issue of entitlement to SMC for statutory housebound for a period outside June 15, 2021 through June 30, 2022. The Board notes that this is an unambiguous withdrawal done with the knowledge of the full effect of that action. See Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that a withdrawal of an appeal must be "explicit, unambiguous, and undertaken with a full understanding of its consequences."); see also DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57-58 (2011). Hence, no allegations of errors of fact or law remain for appellate consideration as to that issue. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of entitlement to SMC for statutory housebound for a period outside June 15, 2021 through June 30, 2022, and it is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

Service Connection for ED

Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty from active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that which is pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

The VA treatment records show the Veteran has a diagnosis of ED and current treatment for ED. See, e.g., February 2021 VA Treatment Records and July 2021 VA Treatment Records.

During the April 2025 Board Hearing, the Veteran testified that his penile issues began during service in 1980 and have continued since that time. He stated that in 1980, he was attempting to get into the back of a two-and-a-half-ton truck, so his legs were straddling the gate to get in, at which time he bumped his private area. He testified that he suffered excruciating pain at that time and has had difficulty maintaining an erection and/or had erectile dysfunction afterwards. The Veteran testified that his penile issues became worse in 1990 to 1992, and it has hurt him so badly since then that he has not had sex since that time. As to these lay statements that the Veteran's ED began in 1980, while in service, and has continued and progressed since that time, the Board finds the Veteran's statements as to his observable symptoms to be competent lay evidence. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (holding that a lay witness is competent to testify to that which the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of his personal knowledge).

After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds the competent, credible, and probative evidence demonstrates the Veteran's ED began during military service and has continued since that time. To this end, the Board notes ED was diagnosed in the VA treatment records; and the Veteran's competent and credible
Veteran's ED began in 1980, while in service, and has continued and progressed since that time, the Board finds the Veteran's statements as to his observable symptoms to be competent lay evidence. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (holding that a lay witness is competent to testify to that which the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of his personal knowledge).

After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds the competent, credible, and probative evidence demonstrates the Veteran's ED began during military service and has continued since that time. To this end, the Board notes ED was diagnosed in the VA treatment records; and the Veteran's competent and credible lay statements show he has had difficulty maintaining an erection and/or had erectile dysfunction during service that has continued and progressed since service. Therefore, service connection for ED is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has appropriately applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine in this case. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

MARTIN B. PETERS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Garfield, Jeannine F.

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer