URINARY INCONTINENCE

Summary

The veteran served in the United States Air Force from June 1995 to June 1999 and in the United States Navy from January 2009 until his honorable discharge in January 2010. The veteran appealed the denial of service connection for bowel incontinence and bilateral radiculopathies (left and right lower extremity, left and right upper extremity), all claimed as secondary to a low back disability. The Board denied all claims, finding that the persuasive weight of the evidence indicated the veteran did not have a current diagnosis for any of the claimed conditions. Specifically, the Board noted the absence of any bowel incontinence diagnosis or complaints, and similarly, no diagnosis or complaints of radiculopathy in the service treatment records or post-service treatment records. A March 2018 VA back examination found no radiculopathy or bowel problems, and an August 2022 private treatment note indicated the veteran denied radicular symptoms. The Board concluded that without evidence of a current diagnosed disability, service connection could not be established for any of the claimed conditions.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of bowel incontinence; No complaints of bowel incontinence in service or post-service records; March 2018 VA exam found no bowel problems

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25096501
Decision Date: 11/05/25	Archive Date: 11/05/25

DOCKET NO. 240917-478579
DATE: November 5, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bowel incontinence as secondary to facet joint hypertrophy to include arthritis (claimed as low back disability) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral, ilio-inguinal, sciatic, external cutaneous and obturator nerve as secondary to low back disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral, ilio-inguinal, sciatic, external cutaneous and obturator nerve as secondary to low back disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity radiculopathy as secondary to low back disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy as secondary to low back disability is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The persuasive weight of the evidence indicates the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for bowel incontinence. 

2. The persuasive weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for left lower extremity radiculopathy in any nerve.   

3. The persuasive weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for right lower extremity radiculopathy 

4. The persuasive weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for left upper extremity radiculopathy.

5. The persuasive weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for right upper extremity radiculopathy.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bowel incontinence have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral, ilio-inguinal, sciatic, external cutaneous and obturator nerve as secondary to low back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity radiculopathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral, ilio-inguinal, sciatic, external cutaneous and obturator nerve as secondary to low back disability service connection have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 Air Force from June 1995 to June 1999 and in the United States Navy from January 2009 until his honorable discharge in January 2010.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in August 2024 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. 

In the September 17, 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to
 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted 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 an initial matter, in the September 2024 VA Form 10182, the Veteran appealed the August 2024 decision to defer entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder (GERD). The August 2024 rating decision notifying the Veteran that entitlement to service connection for GERD was being deferred was not a final decision on the matter and thus the appeal of this decision was premature. Therefore, there is no question of law or fact for the Board to decide as to this issue and the Board will not be addressing it any further. 

Service Connection

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).

In addition to the regulations cited above, service connection is warranted for a disability which is aggravated by, proximately due to, or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Any additional impairment of earning capacity resulting from an already service-connected condition, regardless of whether or not the additional impairment is itself a separate disease or injury caused by the service-connected condition, should also be compensated. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. Id.

The Veteran is asserting claims of secondary service connection for his radiculopathies and bowel incontinence secondary to a low back disability. He is not currently service-connected for this low back disability, and therefore, these claims cannot be established secondarily. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for bowel incontinence as secondary to facet joint hypertrophy to include arthritis (claimed as low back disability).

2. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral, ilio-inguinal, sciatic, external cutaneous and obturator nerve as secondary to low back disability. 

3. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral, ilio-inguinal, sciatic, external cutaneous and obturator nerve as secondary to low back disability 

4. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity radiculopathy as secondary to low back disability.

5. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy as secondary to low back disability is denied. 

The Veteran seeks service connection for bowel incontinence and radiculopathy of various bilateral upper and lower extremity nerves. He contends that each disability is secondary to his low back disability. 

As addressed above, the Veteran is not service-connected for low back disability, but can be service-connected on a direct basis. However, the persuasive weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for either the bowel incontinence or any of the radiculopathies. There is no clinical diagnosis nor are there any medical records reporting complaints concerning bowel incontinence or radiculopathy during the period on appeal. In the absence of such a disability, there is no basis for service connection.  Brammer v. Derwinski, 3
 for bowel incontinence and radiculopathy of various bilateral upper and lower extremity nerves. He contends that each disability is secondary to his low back disability. 

As addressed above, the Veteran is not service-connected for low back disability, but can be service-connected on a direct basis. However, the persuasive weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for either the bowel incontinence or any of the radiculopathies. There is no clinical diagnosis nor are there any medical records reporting complaints concerning bowel incontinence or radiculopathy during the period on appeal. In the absence of such a disability, there is no basis for service connection.  Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328, 1332 (1997). Evidence must show that the Veteran currently has a diagnosed condition for which benefits are being claimed.

First, a review of treatment records does not reveal a diagnosis of radiculopathy or bowl incontinence, nor are there any complaints of symptoms that would indicate radiculopathy or bowel incontinence. The March 2018 VA back examination reflected that there was no radiculopathy nor any bowel problems. An August 2022 private treatment note reflected how the Veteran had experienced lower back pain for 25 years, but that he denied any radicular symptoms. 

The Veteran was not afforded VA examinations for the bowel incontinence or the radiculopathies as there is no indication of it in his service treatment records or in any of his post-service treatment records. He has not provided any evidence, either through medical or lay statements, that explain what he is experiencing. 

As such, the persuasive weight of the evidence does not support the Veteran has a current diagnosis for bowel incontinence or any radiculopathy, and there is no basis for service connection for any of the listed disabilities above. 

Accordingly, a current disability is not shown and service connection for bowel incontinence or bilateral lower and upper extremity radiculopathy is not warranted, and the claims must be 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	Imam, S.