Secondary service connection

Erectile dysfunction secondary to diabetes: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided erectile dysfunction claimed as secondary to diabetes in 1,657 decisions. It granted the issue in 26.9% of them, above the 17.5% grant rate for all erectile dysfunction issues, denied it in 24.9%, and remanded it in 46.8%. Counting only decisions on the merits, 51.9% were granted.

Decisions

1,657

2018–2026

Granted

26.9%

All erectile dysfunction: 17.5%

Granted on the merits

51.9%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

46.8%

Denied: 24.9%

See all erectile dysfunction decisions, direct and secondary.

Erectile dysfunction secondary to diabetes: outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2018
249
22.1%32.9%43.4%
2019
248
22.6%25.4%50.8%
2020
275
21.1%25.5%50.9%
2021
222
27.9%23.0%47.7%
2022
213
23.5%22.5%52.6%
2023
175
29.7%29.7%40.0%
2024
134
40.3%16.4%43.3%
2025
102
39.2%17.6%42.2%
2026
39
48.7%17.9%30.8%

Evidence in granted and denied erectile dysfunction decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the erectile dysfunction issue on the merits when the decision mentioned it, compared with decisions that did not. These are associations, not causes, and evidence is recorded per decision, not per issue.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Positive nexus opinion37187.5%33.9%+53.7 pts
Favorable VA exam25885.2%41.1%+44.1 pts
Treating physician opinion12675.8%49.1%+26.7 pts
Private medical opinion55265.5%42.9%+22.6 pts
Combat service14964.4%50.8%+13.6 pts
Buddy statement5164.0%51.6%+12.4 pts
Lay statement1,21147.1%70.2%−23.1 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 75.1% of the decisions that granted erectile dysfunction.
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 26.2% of grants and 8.5% of denials.

Negative evidence in the record

An unfavorable exam or a negative nexus opinion often sits in the same record as favorable evidence, and the Board weighs them against each other. So these rows show how often erectile dysfunction was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion86349.8%54.7%−4.9 pts
Unfavorable VA exam1,07749.8%57.3%−7.5 pts

Why the Board granted or denied erectile dysfunction

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Caused by the service-connected disability90
  2. Current diagnosis established62
  3. Service connection established46
  4. Aggravated by the service-connected disability6
  5. Veteran diagnosed with erectile dysfunction5
  6. Criteria for secondary service connection met5
  7. Criteria for service connection met4
  8. Diagnosed with erectile dysfunction4

Most common reasons in denials

  1. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service50
  2. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis46
  3. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim35
  4. Service records negative or silent33
  5. No current diagnosis16
  6. Service connection established14
  7. Diabetes mellitus not service-connected13
  8. Current diagnosis established10

Numbers are decisions that gave the reason. Reasons are short phrases extracted by AI from each decision; common wordings of the same reason are grouped. Benefit of the doubt is reported above.

Recent erectile dysfunction decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26040886Jonathan Hager · 2026

Current disability (ED) established.; Veteran service-connected for diabetes and panic disorder.; Conflicting medical opinions presented.; Evidence evenly balanced.; Benefit of the doubt applied.

Citation Nr. A26040684Michael J. Skaltsounis · 2026

Veteran has a current diagnosis of ED.; Veteran is service-connected for DM II.; A private medical opinion found ED to be at least as likely as not due to DM II.; Benefit of the doubt applied to grant secondary service connection.

Citation Nr. 26004372Donnie R. Hachey · 2026

ED is secondary to service-connected type 2 diabetes; VA physician found ED at least as likely as not due to diabetes; Medical literature links ED to long-standing diabetes

Denied

Citation Nr. A26033547R. Bisignani · 2026

No verifiable herbicide exposure; Service treatment records silent for erectile dysfunction; VA examiner opined less likely than not caused by toxic exposure; No nexus to service or diabetes; Diabetes not service-connected

Citation Nr. A26030502Ardie A. Bland · 2026

No in-service event, injury, or disease documented; No continuity of symptomatology; Earliest evidence post-service

Citation Nr. A26026259L. Howell · 2026

ED not incurred in service; ED not secondary to service-connected disability; DM not service-connected

Rules that apply to secondary erectile dysfunction claims

Research your erectile dysfunction case

Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.

Open VA Law Explorer

How these numbers are calculated

  • Counts decisions in which the Board decided a erectile dysfunction issue claimed as secondary to diabetes, by the outcome of that issue.
  • The primary disability is read from the decision text ("secondary to …") and grouped by name, so spellings such as "PTSD" and "posttraumatic stress disorder" count together.
  • Secondary claims also include aggravation of a non-service-connected condition by a service-connected one (38 CFR 3.310(b)).
  • The data comes from CaseScribe's AI extraction of public BVA decisions (2018–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.