EPIDIDYMO-ORCHITIS CHRONIC

Summary

The Veteran, who served from November 1972 to October 1976, appealed the denial of service connection for epididymitis. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the January 2020 AOJ decision, noting the Veteran's election of the hearing docket but subsequent withdrawal of the hearing request. Service connection for a disability requires evidence of a current disability, incurrence or aggravation in service, and a nexus between the current disability and service. The Board applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine, citing 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), as the evidence was found to be in approximate balance. The AOJ's finding that a qualifying event occurred in service was upheld, as service treatment records from September 1974 showed a complaint of right testicle pain and a seven-day hospitalization for acute right epididymitis. Although the separation examination was normal, post-service records and a private physician's August 2008 letter indicated ongoing bilateral epididymitis, with surgery for the left side in February 2021. The private physician opined that it was as likely as not that the condition began during service. The Board found the VA examinations, which disregarded the Veteran's current symptoms, to be without probative value. Based on the service treatment records, post-service evidence, and the private medical opinion, the Board concluded that epididymitis was incurred during service and granted service connection.

Rationale

Service treatment records show in-service complaint and treatment for epididymitis.; Post-service records and private physician opinion support current diagnosis and link to service.; Benefit of the doubt applied due to approximate balance of evidence.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040656
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210105-277569
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for epididymitis is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's epididymitis was incurred during service. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for epididymitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2024); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2025). 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1972 to October 1976. He passed away in July 2021. His surviving spouse has been properly substituted in the appeal. See September 2022 Correspondence.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a January 2020 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In the January 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On May 17, 2024, the Appellant withdrew the hearing request.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Appellant or representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 20.801. 

If the Appellant 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 claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service connection for epididymitis

Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated in service.  See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4 th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Where lay evidence is competent, the Board must weigh the competent lay evidence against the other evidence of record in determining credibility. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1334-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, the absence of corroborating records is an insufficient basis on which to find lay statements not credible. Id. at 1337.

In the January 2020 rating decision, the AOJ made the following finding: the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service as the service treatment records show a one-time complaint of right testicle pain September 19
d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Where lay evidence is competent, the Board must weigh the competent lay evidence against the other evidence of record in determining credibility. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1334-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, the absence of corroborating records is an insufficient basis on which to find lay statements not credible. Id. at 1337.

In the January 2020 rating decision, the AOJ made the following finding: the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service as the service treatment records show a one-time complaint of right testicle pain September 19, 1974. Under the Appeals Modernization Act, the Board is bound by the favorable findings of the AOJ in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104. The Board finds no clear and unmistakable error in this instance. 

Additionally, service treatment records show that the Veteran received treatment in September 1974 for acute right epididymitis and was hospitalized for seven days to treat this condition. His separation examination was normal. See September 1976 Separation Examination.

Following service, the record contains VA treatment records showing treatment for bilateral epididymitis. See February 2016, April 2017 VA Treatment Records. Additionally, the Veteran received treatment from a private provider for bilateral epididymitis. See October 2020, January 2021, February 2021, May 2021 Private Treatment Records. Significantly, the Veteran underwent an epididymectomy surgery on the left side in February 2021. The February 2021 surgery report stated that the Veteran had a sever episode of epididymitis requiring hospital admission in the 1970s and has had intermittent issues since bilaterally. Most recently he had left sided swelling and tenderness. 

An August 2008 letter from the Veteran's private physician stated, regarding past medical history of right epididymitis, that the Veteran reported that "he has been treated for this many times over the years by his previous physicians and I have no reason to doubt that this is the case. Regarding the case of this problem it is as likely as not that this began during his service in the military."

The Veteran was afforded two VA examinations regarding his claimed epididymitis in April 2017 and January 2020. Both VA examiners found that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis; however, the Veteran did report having current symptoms of swelling and pain during both examinations. As the contemporaneous medical evidence does in fact show that the Veteran had current manifestations of epididymitis and both examiners disregarded the Veteran's competent reports of symptoms of epididymitis, these VA examinations are given no probative value.

In light of the forgoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's epididymitis was incurred in service. Service treatment records show that the Veteran was treated for epididymitis, post-service medical evidence includes a current diagnosis of the disability, and the Veteran's medical history and the August 2008 private opinion demonstrate that the Veteran's epididymitis is related to service. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran's diagnosed epididymitis was incurred during service and service connection is warranted. 

 

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Meawad, J.

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.