Erectile dysfunction decisions — 2010

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need to verify his claimed in-service stressors and to obtain a supplemental opinion regarding the etiology of his diabetes mellitus.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction, which he claims are due to exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. The case has been remanded to obtain additional information regarding the transfer flight from the Philippines to the United States.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service connection claims for diabetes mellitus, erectile dysfunction, urination problems, peripheral neuropathy, and bilateral eye disability are denied as there is no evidence of in-country service or visitation in Vietnam to support a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board denied service connection for hypertension, erectile dysfunction, major depressive disorder, narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and varicose veins. The Veteran's lay assertions regarding the development of these conditions during active duty or National Guard training were not credible.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a neurogenic bladder and erectile dysfunction as secondary to a neurogenic bladder, finding no credible evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, and the case is dismissed.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, finding that new and material evidence had not been presented. The RO previously denied the claim in August 2007.

The Board found that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating, and denied his claim. The hypertension issue was not addressed in detail.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a back disability has been reopened, but the claim for erectile dysfunction remains denied as it is not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected prostatitis.

The Veteran's claim for an increased (compensable) rating for erectile dysfunction was denied by the RO. The matter is being remanded to consider additional evidence.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to assess the impact of his service-connected disabilities on his ability to work.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and the need for an additional VA examination to determine if the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is related to service or his service-connected PTSD.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including peripheral vascular disease of the left and right lower extremities, major depression, diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction, left and right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, tinnitus, and hearing loss, have rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. The Board finds that his combined disability rating has been 70 percent or higher since June 20, 2005, meeting the threshold requirement for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a).

The Veteran's erectile dysfunction, as secondary to his service-connected prostate cancer, is not shown to be associated with a penile deformity. Therefore, he does not meet the criteria for a compensable disability rating under Diagnostic Code 7522.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for a back disorder was withdrawn. The Board found that his erectile dysfunction and groin injury residuals are not related to active duty service, nor is there evidence of a current sleep disorder.

The Veteran's claims for an increased rating for service-connected diabetes mellitus and a TDIU are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including new VA examinations addressing the effects of his service-connected disabilities on his ability to work.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including bilateral ankle and foot disorders, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction, have been denied as there is no competent evidence linking these conditions to his period of active service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for multiple myeloma and erectile dysfunction, finding that there was no evidence of in-service exposure to Agent Orange or any other herbicide agent. The Board also found that the current disabilities were not related to service.

The Veteran's claims for service connection have been denied. The RO found no evidence of exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents during his military service, and thus could not grant service connection based on presumptive exposure. Additionally, the Veteran did not meet the criteria for secondary service connection due to underlying Type II diabetes mellitus.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration of the Veteran's claims, including a VA examination to address the onset of tinnitus and the etiology of erectile dysfunction.