Erectile dysfunction decisions — 2009

The Board denied service connection for erectile dysfunction as it was not shown to be related to the Veteran's active service or a service-connected disability.

The Veteran was granted a 10 percent rating for GERD and hiatal hernia, but service connection was denied for coronary artery disease, sleep disorder, erectile dysfunction, and irritable bowel disease.

The Board denied service connection for vertigo with dizziness and nausea, headaches, hypertension, asbestosis, diabetes mellitus, skin cancer, diverticulitis, erectile dysfunction, and peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities.

The Board denied the claims for service connection for erectile dysfunction, urinary problems, and constipation as they were not shown to be related to active service or a service-connected disability.

The Board denied service connection for a lung disorder, skin disorder, and prostate cancer with incontinence and erectile dysfunction as there was no evidence linking the conditions to active service or herbicide exposure.

The Board denied the claims for service connection for hypertension, erectile dysfunction, and peripheral vascular disease as they were not shown to be related to or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus type II.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II and related conditions due to a lack of evidence supporting presumed exposure to herbicides during the Veteran's service.

The Board denied the claims for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus as due to herbicide exposure and for peripheral neuropathy, erectile dysfunction, and hypertension as secondary to type II diabetes mellitus.

The Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, now styled to include as secondary to herbicide exposure, was reopened but ultimately denied. The claims for service connection for kidney disorder, bilateral peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension, erectile dysfunction, and diabetic retinopathy were also denied.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection, increased ratings, and TDIU as there was no evidence of a chronic disability related to his military service or secondary to his diabetes.

The veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II and erectile dysfunction were denied as the evidence did not show that he set foot ashore in Vietnam or that his conditions are related to his military service.

The Board denied service connection for the veteran's claimed conditions, including respiratory disorder, hyperlipidemia, obesity, GERD, hypertension, ED, osteoarthritis, and sleep apnea, as none of these conditions were shown to be related to his military service or any exposure to hazardous environmental agents.

The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development and adjudication of the claims.

The Veteran's service connection for PTSD was granted, while claims for increased ratings for right and left bunionectomies were denied. The Board remanded the claims for chronic fatigue syndrome and erectile dysfunction for further development.

The veteran's erectile dysfunction is at least as likely as not related to his service-connected PTSD.

The Veteran's erectile dysfunction does not result in a compensable evaluation, while his peripheral neuropathy of the right and left lower extremities each warrant a 10 percent rating.

The Veteran's claims for higher initial ratings for diabetes mellitus, erectile dysfunction, and PTSD were denied as the evidence did not support a rating in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus, no compensable evaluation was warranted for erectile dysfunction, and an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for PTSD was also not supported.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal on the issues of increased ratings for prostate cancer, peripheral neuropathy of the right and left lower extremities, and cephalgia. The claim for an increased evaluation for bilateral defective hearing was denied as no compensable rating could be assigned.

The veteran withdrew his appeal for all issues, and the Board dismissed the case.

The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension was denied, as the evidence did not show diastolic pressure predominantly at or above 110 or systolic pressure predominantly at or above 200. The claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction on a secondary basis was also denied due to lack of sufficient evidence linking it to his service-connected conditions.