Citation Nr: 1805734	
Decision Date: 01/29/18    Archive Date: 02/07/18

DOCKET NO.  11-20 593	)	DATE  
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities.


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	National Association of County Veterans Service Officers


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

K. Thompson, Associate Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 2005 to August 2007.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.


REMAND

The Board regrets further delay in this case, but finds that another remand is necessary with respect to the claim for entitlement to TDIU.  The Veteran contends that his repeated hospitalizations for PTSD have prevented him from being gainfully employed.  In its February 2014 remand, the Board ordered that the Veteran should be provided a VA examination to determine the effect of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD on his unemployability.  This examination was not provided and the Board finds that it is necessary to determine the impact of the Veteran's PTSD on his ability to secure or follow substantially gainful employment.  A remand is therefore required to comply with the Board's February 2014 remand instructions.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App 268 (1998).  

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Obtain updated VA treatment records.

2.  Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination to determine the impact, if any, that his service-connected PTSD has on his unemployability.  

The examiner should discuss the impact of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD on his ability to maintain substantially gainful employment, to include what types of employment he could maintain (if any).  

In doing so, the examiner should take into consideration the Veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not his age or any impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities.  

Any opinion should be reconciled with all evidence of record.  A complete rationale for any opinion expressed and conclusion reached should be set forth.  

2.  Then review the claims file. If the directive specified in this remand has not been implemented, appropriate corrective action should be undertaken before readjudication.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

3.  Thereafter, readjudicate the claim for a TDIU in light of all additional evidence received. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and afforded an opportunity to respond before the file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration.

	(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)


The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.  The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2012).



_________________________________________________
Nathaniel J. Doan
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (2012), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2017).