Citation Nr: 0735900 Decision Date: 11/14/07 Archive Date: 11/26/07 DOCKET NO. 02-06 732 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Kessel, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from March 1996 to March 2001. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana. In an October 2006 decision, the Board granted initial ratings of 10 percent for both service-connected left eye laceration and right ankle sprain. The Board also remanded claims of service connection for joint pain of the right shoulder and incontinence. During the pendency of the remand, the veteran's right shoulder claim was granted. Consequently, the incontinence claim is the only issue remaining on appeal before the Board. FINDING OF FACT The veteran likely has urinary incontinence that is attributable to his active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran has urinary incontinence that is the result of disease or injury incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be established for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2007). The veteran contends that he currently has voiding problems due to urinary incontinence that had its onset during active military service. He therefore believes he should be granted service connection. A review of the veteran's service medical records reveals that the veteran's entrance examination was normal concerning the genitourinary system. A July 1998 service record showed a history of incontinence, which was progressively getting worse. The veteran was diagnosed with incontinence. In August 1998, the veteran was seen for complaints of voiding problems. A two-year history was noted. He was diagnosed with lower urinary tract symptoms. In November 2000, the veteran underwent a pre-discharge VA examination in relation to several service connection claims. Genitourinary symptoms were not noted, but the veteran had yet to file his claim for incontinence and it was not specifically addressed. After service, the veteran underwent a retention examination for the Army Reserves in April 2003. The veteran noted having a problem frequent urination. Post-service VA treatment records reflect a complaint of urinary problems in May 2001. Records from 2004 show regular treatment for voiding problems and incontinence. The veteran was prescribed Flomax, but still had incontinence problems. The evidence establishes both in-service and post-service complaints and symptoms of incontinence. In order to establish service connection, there nevertheless must be competent medical evidence of a nexus between the two. Pursuant to the Board's October 2006 remand, the veteran was afforded a VA examination to address this nexus issue. In April 2007, a genitourinary examination was administered by VA. The examiner reviewed the claims file and noted the veteran's in-service urinary incontinence complaints. The examiner did not find any specific residuals of genitourinary disease, but he noted that the veteran was being followed by the urology department at the VA Medical Center in Alexandria, Louisiana. The examiner diagnosed the veteran with urge urinary incontinence of as yet an undetermined etiology, symptoms of prostatism without objective evidence of obstructive uropathy, occasional acute urinary tract infections with probably acute prostatitis, and mild Peyronie's disease of the penis without erectile dysfunction. The examiner stated that it was his professional opinion that the veteran's current urologic condition was related to the condition complained of during basic military training. Although the April 2007 VA examiner stated that the veteran's incontinence was of an undetermined etiology, he clearly thought that the condition was nonetheless related to the veteran's in-service complaints of incontinence. The veteran's representative contends that the examiner's statement represents sufficient opinion evidence in support of the service connection claim. The Board agrees, in that the examiner was stating that he did not yet know the cause of the veteran's incontinence, but was of the opinion that it in fact had its onset during active military service. Thus, despite a lack of detailed reasoning, the opinion represents competent medical nexus evidence that the veteran's current urinary incontinence is related to his in-service incontinence. There is no other medical opinion of record, so the VA examiner's opinion is not contradicted. Reasonable doubt is to be resolved favor of the veteran. When doing so, the Board concludes that service connection for urinary incontinence must therefore be granted. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. ORDER Service connection for urinary incontinence is granted. ________________________________ MARK F. HALSEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs