Citation Nr: 18146135
Decision Date: 10/30/18	Archive Date: 10/30/18

DOCKET NO. 16-42 224
DATE:	October 30, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU), is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities preclude him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for TDIU have been met.  38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from May 1967 to March 1970. His military decorations include a Combat Action Ribbon and the Purple Heart Medal.
These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. 
1. Entitlement to individual unemployability (TDIU)
Total disability is considered to exist when there is any impairment that is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340(a)(1). Total ratings are authorized for any disability or combination of disabilities for which the VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, 38 C.F.R. Part 4, prescribes a 100 percent evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340(a)(2). Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The veteran’s education, employment history, and loss of work-related functions due to pain are factors to be considered. Ferraro v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 326, 330, 332 (1991). Individual unemployability must be determined without regard to any nonservice-connected disabilities or the veteran’s advancing age. 38 C.F.R. § 3.341(a); 8 C.F.R. § 4.19.
In the current appeal, the Veteran has been service connected for the following disabilities: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), evaluated as 70 percent disabling; residual fragment wounds of the nose with submucus resection, evaluated at 30 percent disabling; diabetes mellitus and right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, all evaluated as 20 percent disabling; tinnitus, coronary artery disease, and a nose/left side of face/left ear scar, all evaluated as 10 percent disabling; and bilateral hearing loss, a right elbow scar, and erectile dysfunction, all evaluated as zero percent disabling. The 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) schedular criteria for consideration of TDIU have been met.  
There is evidence in the record that the Veteran’s individual service-connected disabilities, standing alone, do not pose a barrier to securing or following a substantially gainful occupation. In the report of a June 2010 PTSD evaluation, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s “mental health symptoms would likely cause moderate discomfort when interacting with other people, and moderately reduce communication effectiveness.” The examiner also noted that “his prognosis is fair for gradual symptom improvement.” In a September 2012 hearing loss and tinnitus examination, the examiner found that the only occupational limitation was the requirement to wear hearing aids. In a November 2013 VA examination for diabetes mellitus type II, the examiner found that the Veteran had not lost strength attributable to his disease.
That said, the Board notes that the Veteran’s Representative submitted a May 2014 vocational exam, post-dating all of the other medical records, wherein the examiner concluded that based on review of the Veteran’s claim file, including all medical information, and a personal interview, “it is as likely as not that [the Veteran] is unable to secure of maintain gainful employment as a result of his service connected disabilities.” The examiner found that the Veteran was unable to concentrate on tasks, and forgets where he is going, where he has been, and what he should be doing. The examiner opined that there is no work that would accommodate the Veteran’s lack of concentration.
Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities preclude all forms of substantially gainful employment consistent with his educational and employment background. The Veteran’s claim is thus granted. 
 
A. C. MACKENZIE
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	B. Banks, Associate Counsel