Citation Nr: 18147756 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 15-35 513 DATE: November 6, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from July 1989 to June 1993. This matter is before the Board on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision. The Veteran appeared before the Board during a September 2017 hearing; a transcript is of record. The Board remanded the matter in August 2018. 1. Entitlement to a TDIU rating is remanded. In the previous [August 2018] remand, the Board instructed that the Veteran be scheduled for an examination in order to determine whether his PTSD with dysthymic disorder, cognitive disorder not otherwise specified, and alcohol abuse in partial remission has rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. The examiner was instructed to “elicit from the Veteran his complete educational, vocational, and employment history and should note his complaints regarding the impact of his PTSD on his employment” (emphasis added). The examiner was instructed to identify all limitations or functional impairment caused solely by psychiatric disability. On September 2018 VA examination, regarding his occupational history, the Veteran reported that he was working from home, in tech support for Apple products. He reported that he recently was placed on leave “because of his medical issue”, and that “he was pushed to resign from his last job because of his inconsistent and poor performance”. The examiner noted that no educational history was indicated. In conjunction with the examination, the examiner completed an Individual Unemployability Statement in which he opined that, due solely to the mental health diagnoses, the Veteran has difficulty in certain areas. The Board finds the September 2018 VA examination and opinion to be inadequate because it does not fulfill the instructions set forth in the previous remand. Additional medical guidance is necessary on remand. Further, the Board finds that the Veteran’s employment history is unclear from the record. The most recent employment history submitted by the Veteran, which was received by VA in August 2014, shows that he last worked for Tele-Network Partners on April 3, 2014. He testified in September 2017 that he had recently, within the previous month, begun a new job in tech support for Apple products. On September 2018 VA examination he reported that he was placed on leave “because of his medical issue”, though it is unclear to which “medical issue” he was referring. Moreover, the record is also unclear as to whether any current or previous employment would be considered substantially gainful or marginal employment. On remand, the Veteran should be asked to complete an updated TDIU application (VA Form 21-8940) clearly identifying periods of unemployability due to service-connected disability, and the AOJ should, as necessary, solicit employment information from the employers identified. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request that the Veteran complete and return VA Form 21-8940 (an official TDIU application), providing his employment history with salary information, average hours worked, etc., and clearly identify periods of unemployability due to his service-connected disabilities throughout the entire period on appeal. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician regarding the current severity of his PTSD with dysthymic disorder, cognitive disorder not otherwise specified, and alcohol abuse in partial remission. The examiner should elicit from the Veteran his complete educational, vocational, and employment history and should note his complaints regarding the impact of his psychiatric disability on employment. The examiner should identify all limitations or functional impairment caused solely by the service-connected psychiatric disability, and describe in detail the impact the Veteran’s psychiatric disability has on his occupational and daily activity functioning (i.e., what types of activities would be precluded by the disability). The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Schechner, Counsel