Citation Nr: 18146056 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 12-07 728 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Throughout the appeal, the Veteran’s PTSD has been manifested by occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. He does not have total occupational and social impairment. 2. The Veteran meets the schedular criteria for TDIU. 3. The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1-4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 2. The criteria for TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from June 1966 to June 1970. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2011 rating decision. In that rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 50 percent evaluation. In July 2012, the Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. In March 2018, the Board notified the Veteran that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the hearing was no longer employed at the Board and that he had the opportunity to testify at another hearing. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707. In April 2018, the Veteran’s representative indicated that the Veteran did not want to appear at a hearing before another Veterans Law Judge. Thus, there is no outstanding hearing request. In July 2014, the Board granted an increased rating for the Veteran’s PTSD and assigned a 70 percent evaluation for the entire appeal period. The Board also remanded the issue of entitlement to TDIU for further development. The Veteran appealed the issue of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for PTSD to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In April 2015, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion) filed by the parties that vacated the Board’s July 2014 decision with regard to the claim of entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD and remanded the issue to the Board. Specifically, the parties found that the Board did not support its conclusion that a 100 percent rating for PTSD was not warranted with an adequate statement of reasons and bases. In September 2015, the Board remanded the case to the AOJ for further development. That development was completed as to the issues decided herein, and the case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. In addition, the Board notes that the Veteran has also perfected an appeal for the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for erectile dysfunction. However, this issue has not yet been certified to the Board, and VACOLS indicates that it is not yet activated for the Board to take action. Thus, it is unclear if the AOJ is taking any further action or development. Therefore, the Board will not take jurisdiction over the issue at this juncture, but it will be the subject of a subsequent Board decision, if otherwise in order. Law and Analysis Neither the Veteran nor his attorney has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). PTSD Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the medical history of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). While the regulations require review of the recorded history of a disability by the adjudicator to ensure a more accurate evaluation, the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over the current medical findings. Where a veteran appeals the denial of a claim for an increased disability rating for a disability for which service connection was in effect before he filed the claim for increase, the present level of the veteran’s disability is the primary concern, and past medical reports should not be given precedence over current medical findings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 57-58 (1994). However, where the question for consideration is a higher initial rating since the grant of service connection, evaluation of the medical evidence since the grant of service connection to consider the appropriateness of “staged rating” (assignment of different ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts found) is required. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999); see also Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Under Diagnostic Code 9411, a 70 percent rating is warranted when the psychiatric disorder results in occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. A 100 percent rating is warranted when the psychiatric disorder results in total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. The use of the term “such as” in the general rating formula for mental disorders in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve as examples of the type and degree of symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). It is not required to find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms recited for particular ratings. Id. The use of the phrase “such symptoms as,” followed by a list of examples, provides guidance as to the severity of symptoms contemplated for each rating, in addition to permitting consideration of other symptoms, particular to each veteran and disorder, and the effect of those symptoms on the claimant’s social and work situation. Id. In Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit stated that “a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration.” It was further noted that “§ 4.130 requires not only the presence of certain symptoms but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas.” In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent at any time during the pendency of the appeal. The Veteran’s disability picture, to include the severity, frequency, and duration of his symptoms, as well as the resulting impairment of social and occupational functioning, is more consistent with a 70 percent rating throughout the period on appeal. A 70 percent rating is warranted when the psychiatric disorder results in occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Throughout the entire appeal, the Veteran has maintained a history of symptoms that predominantly included social withdrawal (see, e.g., January 2011, May 2016 VA examination reports); difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships (see, e.g., March 2012, May 2016 VA examination reports); depressed mood (see, e.g., March 2012, May 2016 VA examination reports); mildly impaired thought processes (see, e.g., January 2011 VA examination report); anxiety and suspiciousness (see, e.g., May 2016 VA examination report); mild memory loss (see, e.g., March 2012, May 2016 VA examination reports); impairment of short- and long-term memory (see, e.g., May 2016 VA examination report); occasional abnormal speech (see, e.g., January 2011 VA examination report); flattened affect (see, e.g., March 2012 VA examination report); panic attacks less than once per week (see, e.g., January 2011, March 2012 VA examination reports); consistent nightmares and sleep problems (see, e.g., January 2011, March 2012, May 2016 VA examination reports); occasional delusional history (see, e.g., January 2011 VA examination report); disturbances of motivation and mood (see, e.g., March 2012, May 2016 VA examination reports); and passive suicidal ideation (see, e.g., January 2011, March 2012, May 2016 VA examination reports). These symptoms support a 70 percent evaluation. Nevertheless, for the entire period on appeal, the evidence of record, to include consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements, VA treatment records, and the VA examination reports, does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s overall disability picture is consistent with a 100 percent rating. A 100 percent rating is warranted when the psychiatric disorder results in total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. The Veteran does not have many of the symptoms listed in the 100 percent criteria during the appeal period. In this regard, there is no evidence of gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. See, e.g., January 2011, March 2012 VA examination reports. Moreover, to the extent that any of the symptoms contemplated in the rating criteria for a 100 percent evaluation or other symptoms of similar severity may be shown or argued, the Board finds that the Veteran’s PTSD was not productive of total occupational and social impairment. The Board emphasizes that a 100 percent disability evaluation requires both total social and occupational impairment. See Melson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 334 (1991) (use of the conjunctive “and” in a statutory provision meant that all of the conditions listed in the provision must be met); cf. Johnson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 95 (1994) (only one disjunctive “or” requirement must be met in order for an increased rating to be assigned). As to occupational impairment, the Veteran’s occupational history included work as a welfare case worker, counselor, carpenter, computer repair technician, computer networker, and computer science teacher. See, e.g., January 2011, March 2012, May 2016 VA examination reports; November 2013 Social Security Administration (SSA) disability work history report; July 2015 private vocational maintain consistent employment. However, he has also indicated that his unemployment was only partly due to the effects of his PTSD. See, e.g., January 2011 VA examination report. In his September 2013 SSA application, the Veteran indicated that he stopped working in October 2006 due to his medical conditions and other reasons. Specifically, he stated that his job ended and that he was caring for his son. The evidence also shows that the Veteran and his wife developed and implemented a successful equine therapy program for children and young adults with disabilities. See, e.g., January 2011 through August 2014 VA treatment notes. See also March 2012 VA examination report (Veteran reported that he owned and operated 40 acres with four horses and that he had no difficulties performing farm chores). The Board notes that a July 2015 private vocational consultant opined that the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms impacted his occupational functioning where social skills, such as cooperation with coworkers and supervisors, are necessary. However, the January 2011 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s psychiatric symptoms caused occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The examiner noted that the Veteran demonstrated good overall cognitive abilities despite some superficial tangential thoughts and relatively slow pace of his verbalizations expressed during the examination. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships because he had been unable to maintain a job for more than two years at a time. In addition, the May 2016 VA examiner opined that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation. Finally, in a June 2016 VA medical opinion, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s psychological impacts from PTSD did not necessarily impact his physical or sedentary state of function. She noted that the Veteran was capable of good communication and that he worked in past roles involved primarily in communicative activity. She also stated that he appeared capable of following instructions. She indicated that the Veteran complained of memory impairment, especially short-term memory; he was untrusting of others and easily irritated; and he described a state of being that would make him less tolerant of changes or stress in any environment. She noted that the Veteran would do better in a consistent environment where he knew what was happening, had control, and felt a sense of safety. She related that unexpected or unpredictable events or interactions would be difficult for him to handle. Notably, none of the examiners determined that the Veteran’s PTSD caused total occupational impairment. Nevertheless, there is also no evidence that the Veteran had total social impairment during the appeal period. While the Veteran was socially withdrawn, he did maintain relationships with his family and a few friends throughout the period on appeal. Specifically, he has remained married throughout the appeal period. See, e.g., January 2011 VA examination report (Veteran described his relationship with his wife as “extremely supportive”), March 2012 VA examination report (Veteran resides with his wife of 31 years), July 2012 hearing transcript (Veteran stated that his wife had been his stabilizing force and held him together), May 2016 VA examination report (Veteran described his marriage as “wonderful”). He also maintained good relationships with his three sons. See, e.g., January 2011 VA examination report, July 2012 hearing transcript. During the May 2016 VA examination, the Veteran stated that he did well with family members. During the July 2012 hearing, he stated that he had lost his temper several times with his children, but he visited with them once every couple of weeks for a few hours. He also stated that he had five friends, but four had passed away, and he had one remaining friend. He related that he felt emotional distance from others, but he felt a very special connection with a horse who was traumatized in a barn fire. See May 2016 VA examination report. Thus, while the Veteran may have some degree of impairment, it cannot be said that he has had total social impairment, as he has maintained some relationships during throughout the appeal period. In addition, the January 2011 and March 2012 VA examiners found that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The May 2016 VA examiner also opined that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation. Such findings are commensurate with lesser degree of impairment than the 70 percent rating assigned throughout the appeal period. Notably, none of the VA examiners opined that the Veteran had total occupational and social impairment. After considering the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran’s symptoms and resulting impairment more closely approximate the criteria for a 70 percent disability rating for the entire period on appeal. Overall, the Veteran has not demonstrated a level of impairment consistent with the 100 percent criteria, nor have the Veteran’s symptoms caused total occupational and social functioning referenced by the 100 percent evaluation criteria. Mauerhan, supra, Vazquez-Claudio, supra. The criteria for the next higher rating of 100 percent have not been met or approximated for this time period. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran’s PTSD warrants a 70 percent rating, and no higher, for the entire appeal period. TDIU All veterans who are shown to be unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disability shall be rated totally disabled. For VA purposes, total disability exists when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 4.16(b). A total disability rating for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when a veteran is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or as a result of two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Nevertheless, even when the percentage requirements are not met, entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis may be granted in exceptional cases when the veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Entitlement to a total rating must be based solely on the impact of service-connected disabilities on the ability to keep and maintain substantially gainful employment. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. The central inquiry is “whether the veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability.” Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). For VA purposes, the term “unemployability” is synonymous with inability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. VAOPGPREC 75-91, 57 Fed. Reg. 2317 (Jan. 21, 1992). Consideration may be given to the veteran’s education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his or her age or to the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; see also Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). A high rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment, but the ultimate question is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether he or she can find employment. See Van Hoose, 4 Vet. App. at 363. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to TDIU. In this case, the Veteran is service-connected for PTSD, rated as 70 percent disabling from December 9, 2010; diabetes mellitus, rated as 20 percent disabling from March 5, 2008; and erectile dysfunction, rated as noncompensable from July 25, 2012. His combined evaluation is 20 percent from March 5, 2008, and 80 percent from December 9, 2010. As such, the Veteran has met the percentage requirements set forth in section 4.16(a) for an award of a total rating based on individual unemployability since December 9, 2010. Nevertheless, upon review of the claims file, the Board finds that the evidence does not show that the Veteran is unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities. During a January 2011 VA PTSD examination, the Veteran indicated that he had a degree in social work. He also stated that he worked as a welfare case worker for two years, that he was a carpenter for five years, and that he was employed as a computer science teacher for two years. He reported that he had good relationships with his supervisors and coworkers. He described an inability to maintain consistent employment and persistent anxiety since he developed PTSD. He stated that he had not worked for seven years. The Veteran related that he was last employed as a teacher, but noted that the computer science department fell apart. He stated that his unemployment was only partly due to the effects of his PTSD. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s psychiatric symptoms caused occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The examiner noted that the Veteran demonstrated good overall cognitive abilities, despite some superficial tangential thoughts and relatively slow pace of his verbalizations expressed during the examination. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships because he had been unable to maintain a job for more than two years at a time. VA treatment notes dated from January 2011 through August 2014 detail the Veteran’s plans and initiation of a disability therapy program. In earlier VA treatment notes, the Veteran described developing a therapy program with the use of horses as a means of therapy for people with various mental and physical disabilities. See, e.g., January 2011, April 2011, June 2011 VA treatment notes. During the March 2012 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he and his wife had built an arena and a barn for their equine therapy program and that they had arranged financing and had a business plan. He also related that he was participating in a week-long program for certification as an equine therapy instructor the following week. In an August 2014 VA treatment note, the Veteran stated that his business, which consisted of providing horse lessons to individuals with various disabilities utilizing therapeutic principles, had exceeded his expectations in terms of success. He related that he was very busy with his business and that the work was rewarding. During the March 2012 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his work history included employment as a carpenter, computer networker, and counselor. He stated that he last worked full-time in 1996 and that he stopped working because he became more and more withdrawn and he did not want to leave his house. He indicated that he had worked part-time since 1996, including teaching a college computer class, working as a computer networker, and performing farm maintenance. He related that he farmed cattle, horses, and hay and that he owned and operated 40 acres with four horses and plans to add two to three more horses within the year. The Veteran also identified no difficulties performing farm chores, including chasing moose from the horse pen. In a May 2012 statement, a friend of the Veteran’s stated that he had employed the Veteran as a carpenter on construction projects. He indicated that the Veteran had difficulty working with other employees on large projects and that he had to place the Veteran on certain tasks in which he would not have to work with other crew members. He related that the Veteran would become moody, withdrawn, and anti-social and that his behavior would cause problems for the successful completion of the project. During a July 2012 hearing, the Veteran stated that the last job he worked was in the late 1990s. He indicated that he worked for a friend that hired him and kept him on the job despite his PTSD because of their friendship. In January 2014, the Veteran was awarded SSA disability benefits for nonservice-connected low back disorder and anxiety disorders. In September 2013, the Veteran claimed SSA disability for service-connected diabetes and PTSD, as well as nonservice-connected high blood pressure and high cholesterol. He alleged an inability to function and/or work that began in January 1996. In a November 2013 SSA work history, the Veteran reported that he worked as a welfare case worker from 1982 to 1983, a social program counselor from 1984 to 1986, a carpenter from 1988 to 1990, a self-employed computer repairman in 2002, a computer repair technician from 1998 to 2003, and a computer repair teacher from 2003 to 2006. In addition, the Veteran related that, when he was not working, he built his family’s home and worked the family farm with cows and horses. In his September 2013 SSA application, the Veteran indicated that he stopped working in October 2006 due to his medical conditions and other reasons. Specifically, he stated that his job ended and that he was caring for his son. However, he related that he believed his conditions became severe enough to keep him from working in January 1996. In the January 2014 SSA disability determination, the SSA adjudicator noted that the Veteran had a longitudinal history of PTSD and depression, and he was assessed as a non-severe psychiatric review technique form (PRTF). Rather, the Veteran was assessed a light reduced functional capacity (RFC) due to his nonservice-connected low back disorder. In a June 2015 statement, the Veteran reported that he felt that he was unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities. He stated that he had intermittent anxiety exacerbated by news of current wars; that he had been in altercations with coworkers and his boss had to keep him separated from others; that he had flashbacks and nightmares which affected his sleep; and that smells triggered his PTSD. He related that he last worked full-time for a construction company as a carpenter from approximately 1990 to 1996. He indicated that the work was seasonal and that contracts were sporadic. He reported that he currently had an equine business with his wife and that they worked with children with mental disabilities. He stated that their business was a non-profit organization and that they had no income from the business. In a July 2015 private TDIU assessment, a private vocational consultant noted that the Veteran was service-connected for PTSD and diabetes mellitus. The vocational consultant noted that, in his review of the Veteran’s claims file, he determined that the Veteran had significant difficulties coping with full-time competitive work since he separated from the Army in 1969. He noted that the Veteran worked sporadically as a seasonal carpenter in the 1980s and 1990s, a self-employed computer technician from 2000 to 2003, and a part-time computer instructor at a community college from 2003 to 2006. The vocational consultant noted that the Veteran had never earned above poverty-level wages in any of his jobs after 1994. He indicated that the Veteran’s difficulties sustaining work were essentially emotional and were focused around an inability to concentrate on or persist at work tasks and an inability to get along with coworkers and immediate supervisors due to his PTSD-related irritability, poor impulse control, isolation, anxiety, and the like. The vocational consultant reported that the Veteran’s wife worked full-time for most of their married years and was the breadwinner in the family. In addition, he noted that she set up her own disabled child therapy program for the past four years and that the Veteran’s “unpaid, limited role in this venture is to serve as ‘bucket-hauler’ for hay feeding and the like.” The vocational consultant related that the Veteran earned his bachelor’s degree in social work in 1976 and that he worked as a counselor at a veteran’s center from 1981 to 1983. The Veteran indicated that he stopped counseling in 1983 when he found it too stressful to counsel other veterans under supervision of more trained personnel. The vocational consultant noted that the Veteran returned to seasonal carpentry work which was also difficult. In his July 2015 report, the private vocational consultant reported that the Veteran did not claim to be limited physically or cognitively. The vocational consultant noted that the Veteran assumed full responsibility of his own self-care and activities of daily living, and he continued to help with his wife’s equine therapy business by feeding the horses, cleaning the stalls, etc. The vocational consultant opined that the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms impacted his occupational functioning where social skills, such as cooperation with coworkers and supervisors is necessary. The vocational consultant also stated: Of course, I think [the Veteran] has acquired a number of remarkable vocational abilities, skills[,] and achievements; however, without being able to get along with and work comfortably with others—be it work dealing with people (as a counselor), with things (as a carpenter)[,] or with data (as a computer technician)—his abilities, skills[,] and achievements cannot lead to vocational viability and success. Interestingly, he has attempted to work in all three major occupational areas (i.e.[,] with data, people[,] and things) and has failed to thrive in any of them, which lends further verification to my opinion that without the ability to trust and cooperate with others, one’s skills, intelligence[,] and physical abilities fall far short of insuring occupational success. The private vocational consultant concluded that it was his opinion that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone prevented him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation and that this had been the case since the Veteran stopped earning substantial gainful earnings in 1994. During the May 2016 VA examination, the Veteran indicated that he worked various jobs over the years and that he retired from a teaching position at a community college when he turned 66-years old. He related that he was a counselor, a welfare caseworker, a carpenter, and worked with computers. He stated that his wife ran an equine therapy center for children and young adults on their property. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation. In a May 2016 VA diabetes examination report, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus and complications would not impact his ability to work. In a June 2016 VA medical opinion, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s psychological impacts from PTSD did not necessarily impact his physical or sedentary state of function. She noted that the Veteran was capable of good communication and that he worked in past roles involved primarily in communicative activity. She also stated that he appeared capable of following instructions. She indicated that the Veteran complained of memory impairment, especially short-term memory; he was untrusting of others and easily irritated; and he described a state of being that would make him less tolerant of changes or stress in any environment. She noted that the Veteran would do better in a consistent environment where he knew what was happening, had control, and felt a sense of safety. She related that unexpected or unpredictable events or interactions would be difficult for him to handle. In another June 2016 VA medical opinion, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran was able to work arduous or unlimited work; moderate work with lifting less than 50 pounds and occasional running, carrying, or climbing; sedentary work involving the use of his upper extremities for grasping, gripping, reaching overhead, and/or keyboarding; and light work, including lifting up to ten pounds, lifting or carrying, pushing or pulling, bending or twisting, kneeling or squatting, standing, sitting, climbing, driving, and walking. The examiner noted that the Veteran may need additional bathroom breaks for urinary frequency due to his service-connected diabetes and erectile dysfunction, and he may have occasional numbness in his hands and feet that may decrease his work efficiency, although he would be able to generally function satisfactorily. In August 2016 correspondence, the Veteran’s attorney stated that the Veteran had a non-profit organization that he ran with his wife. He noted that the Veteran volunteered occasionally with the non-profit and that the Veteran did not receive an income from his work. He also related that the Veteran had not been self-employed since 2003 and that the Veteran had not worked at all since 2006. In a February 2017 VA diabetic sensory-motor peripheral neuropathy examination, the VA examiner stated that the Veteran did not have any functional limitations due to his diabetes. In a February 2017 VA erectile dysfunction examination, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction did not impact his ability to work. The Board does acknowledge that the Veteran has occupational impairment due to his service-connected disabilities. However, these limitations do not appear to prevent all forms or types of employment. In fact, the June 2016 VA examiners opined that the Veteran was not limited, physically or cognitively, in occupational functioning. One of the June 2016 VA examiners opined that the Veteran’s psychological impacts from PTSD did not necessarily impact his physical or sedentary state of function. Another June 2016 VA examiner opined that the Veteran was able to work arduous or unlimited work. The Board does note that, in a July 2015 opinion, a private vocational consultant opined that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone prevented him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation. In so doing, the consultant described the Veteran’s education and work history and discussed the Veteran’s continued involvement with his wife’s nonprofit work. The vocational consultant described the Veteran’s involvement as an “unpaid, limited role in this venture… to serve as ‘bucket-hauler’ for hay feeding and the like.” However, the evidence of record shows that, during the appeal period, the Veteran has maintained an active role in the therapy program. In fact, the Veteran reported that he maintained a 40-acre farm, built a barn and an arena, developed a therapy program and business plan, and became a certified equine therapy counselor. See, e.g, March 2012 VA examination report; see also VA treatment notes dated from January 2011 through August 2014. Thus, the Veteran has demonstrated that he is capable of working. The Board again notes that the ultimate question is whether a veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment rather than whether he or she can find employment. See Van Hoose, 4 Vet. App. at 363. In summary, the Veteran undoubtedly has industrial impairment as a result of his service-connected disabilities, as evidenced by his combined total rating of 80 percent. However, the evidence does not establish that his service-connected disabilities preclude gainful employment. The Board notes that “[t]he percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; see also Van Hoose, 4 Vet. App. at 363 (noting that the disability rating itself is recognition that industrial capabilities are impaired; the record must reflect some factor which takes the case outside the norm) and 38 C.F.R. § 4.15. Thus, after reviewing the record, the Board finds that the disability evaluations assigned under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities accurately reflect the Veteran’s overall impairment to his earning capacity due to his service-connected disabilities. Thus, entitlement to TDIU is not warranted. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the requirements for TDIU have not been met. Thus, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim is denied. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Osegueda, Counsel