Citation Nr: 18147660 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 18-12 666 DATE: November 6, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from March 1967 to March 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in Atlanta, Georgia. The Veteran asserts that a TDIU is warranted. At the outset, throughout the appeal period, service connection is only in effect for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rated as 70 percent disabling. Thus, he meets the threshold requirements for a TDIU. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Board observes that since filing his claim for TDIU, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination as to his psychiatric disability. The evidence of record consists of a December 2011 letter from the Veteran to the Human Resources office for his former employer, in which he informed the human resources officer that he was resigning for medical reasons. He did not indicate that his resignation was specifically due to his service-connected PTSD. In a February 2013 private psychological evaluation, the physician opined that the Veteran was unable to maintain a normal standard of living. He noted that problems with emotional behavioral controls likely rendered the Veteran a danger to any work environment. However, there was no finding that the Veteran’s PTSD rendered him unemployable. In a request for employment information received in May 2014, the employer noted that the Veteran retired. There was no report that concessions were made to the Veteran due to disability, nor was there evidence of time lost during the 12 months preceding last day of employment. Finally, in a May 2014 statement, the Veteran reported the he could not hold a job due to difficulty breathing as a result of a nonservice-connected disability; he also noted several other medical issues respecting physical nonservice-connected disabilities at that time . Consequently, in light of the above evidence, as the evidence suggests that the Veteran’s unemployability may not be solely attributable to his service-connected psychiatric disability and may also implicate his nonservice-connected disabilities, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in order to obtain a VA examination related to the severity of the Veteran’s psychiatric disability in order to ascertain whether such renders him unemployable since leaving his job in December 2011 in this case. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Additionally, the Board observes that in the February 2013 private psychological evaluation, it was noted that following the appellant’s retirement in December 2011, he attempted to work part time with friends and may have been self-employed. Considering the representations made by the Veteran in a clinical setting, reasonable efforts to verify his income and employment from December 2011 to the present must be made on remand. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to submit documents verifying his income and employment for each year from 2011 to the present, as well as an VA Form 21-8940 Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, reflecting his employment since December 2011. 2. Ensure that the Veteran is scheduled for a VA mental health examination to determine the current severity of his psychiatric disability and its effect on his social and occupational functioning. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should indicate all symptomatology associated with the Veteran’s psychiatric disability and indicate the impact of his psychiatric disability on his social and occupational functioning, with particular focus on whether the Veteran’s psychiatric disability rendered him unemployable. All findings should be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. MARTIN B. PETERS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Jones, Counsel