ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION
BETHANY L. BUCK · 2026 · Case ID: A26023670
Summary
The Veteran served on active duty from May 2003 to May 2023. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on a Direct Review docket, meaning only evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision is considered. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for erectile dysfunction, contending it was caused by an in-service injury or exposure, and also claimed it was secondary to service-connected PTSD. To establish service connection, a current disability, an in-service event, and a nexus are generally required. A current diagnosis is a threshold requirement for both direct and secondary claims. The Veteran reported performance issues and inability to sustain an erection during a March 2025 VA examination. However, the VA examiner did not diagnose erectile dysfunction. The Board found the VA examiner's opinion credible and assigned high weight to it. The Veteran's VA and service treatment records also do not contain complaints or a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. While the Veteran is competent to describe his symptoms, the Board noted that establishing a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction is complex and beyond a layperson's capacity. Because the credible medical evidence did not reflect a current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction, service connection was denied.
Rationale
No current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction reflected in VA or service treatment records.; VA examiner did not diagnose erectile dysfunction.; Veteran is competent to describe symptoms but not diagnose complex conditions.
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26023670 Decision Date: 03/17/26 Archive Date: 03/17/26 DOCKET NO. 250502-539719 DATE: March 17, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. FINDING OF FACT The credible medical evidence of record does not reflect a current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction have not been met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 2003 to May 2023. This matter comes before the?Board of Veterans' Appeals?(Board) on appeal from a March 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the May 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. 1. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction The Veteran contends that his erectile dysfunction was caused by an injury or exposure during his service. He has also argued that it is secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder. Generally, in order to prove service connection, a Veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called "nexus" requirement. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) proximately caused by or (b) proximately aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc). The threshold requirement for both direct and secondary service connection is a currently diagnosed disability. In his August 2024 claim, the Veteran stated that he had witnessed his commander's last moments alive. His fiancée had been killed in a hit and run accident in October 2021. He hadn't been the same since these events. In March 2025, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. He reported performance issues and inability to sustain an erection. The VA examiner did not diagnose erectile dysfunction. The March 2025 VA examiner is competent to provide a medical opinion regarding whether a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction is warranted. This opinion is credible because it is based upon an in-person examination of the Veteran as well as a review of his medical records. The Board assigns high weight to the conclusion of the March 2025 VA examiner. The Veteran's VA and service treatment records do not include complaints related to or diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3D. 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, the Board finds the question of the exact diagnosis of erectile dysfunction to be complex in nature. Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?456, 462 (2007). Therefore, while the Veteran is competent to describe his symptoms, he cannot, as a layperson, provide competent medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. Because the credible medical evidence of record does not reflect a current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction, service connection is denied. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Gibbons, Douglas K. 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 erectile dysfunction to be complex in nature. Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?456, 462 (2007). Therefore, while the Veteran is competent to describe his symptoms, he cannot, as a layperson, provide competent medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. Because the credible medical evidence of record does not reflect a current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction, service connection is denied. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Gibbons, Douglas K. 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.