The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for a higher rating for residuals of trauma to the genitourinary tract, with recurrent epididymitis, removal of the left testicle, and urinary retention is denied as his condition does not meet the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 30 percent.
The deciding factor: The veteran's service-connected genitourinary disability does not manifest voiding dysfunction requiring the use of an appliance or absorbent materials which must be changed at least twice a day, daytime voiding intervals of less than one hour, or awakening to void five or more times per night.
- Claimed conditions
- genitourinary tract, recurrent epididymitis, removal of the left testicle, urinary retention
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 30%
- Decision date
- January 19, 2006
- Citation
- 0601696
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,582 · Granted: 32% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0601696.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection of Diabetes Mellitus, Type II and urinary retention (also claimed as bladder condition). The Board dismissed the appeal due to the withdrawal.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's thalamic injury and resulting disabilities are the result of a non-VA procedure performed at MUSC. The Board finds that VA may have proximately caused this treatment by referring the Veteran to MUSC for care, but the evidence is incomplete regarding whether VA specifically referred him or if additional records need to be obtained.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran's failure to report for VA examinations due to hospitalization during October 2019 constitutes a pre-decisional duty to assist error, and thus the claims are being remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remanded the veteran's claim for compensation due to incomplete records and the need for a more detailed medical opinion.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.