Citation Nr: 18154980 Decision Date: 12/03/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 08-35 270 DATE: December 3, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine for the period prior to November 2, 2017 is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary benefits. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent since November 2, 2017, for DDD of the lumbar spine is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to March 28, 2017, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to November 2, 2017, the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability more nearly approximates painful limitation of forward flexion to 30 degrees or less without ankylosis or incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least four weeks in the previous 12 months. 2. Since November 2, 2017, the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability was not manifested by unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spinel or incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least six weeks during a 12-month period. 3. Prior to March 28, 2017, the evidence of record does not suggest that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities precluded him from securing or maintaining substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to a rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for DDD of the lumbar spine for the period prior to November 2, 2017 have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for DDD of the lumbar spine since November 2, 2017 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243. 3. The criteria for entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to March 28, 2017 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.15, 4.16, 4.19. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S Marine Corps from April 1966 to June 1969, and December 2002 to December 2004. This appeal to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) arose from a February 2006 rating decision by Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) in December 2006, and a statement of the case was issued in October 2008 (SOC). The Veteran filed a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) in August 2010. The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. The requested hearing was conducted in October 2011 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the file. In April 2012, the Board remanded the claims for additional development, with the issue of entitlement to TDIU also being remanded for initial development in accordance with Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In June 2015, the claims were remanded again for further evidentiary development. In August 2017, the Board denied entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine, and remanded the TDIU claim for further evidentiary development. The Veteran appealed the August 2017 Board decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC or Court), which vacated the decision and remanded it back to the Board for further development in May 2018. In a November 2017 rating decision, the RO granted an increased rating of 40 percent for DDD lumbar spine, effective November 2, 2017. Because the maximum benefit was not granted now or during the pendency of the appeal period, the issue of entitlement to a higher evaluation remains on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). The RO also granted the Veteran’s claim for TDIU in the November 2017 rating decision, effective March 28, 2017. Since TDIU has not been granted for the appellate period prior to March 28, 2017, this does not constitute a full grant of all benefits possible, and the claim is still before the Board. Id.; See also Rice, supra. Increased Ratings Disability ratings are determined by applying a schedule of ratings that is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition should be emphasized. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Examination reports are to be interpreted in light of the whole recorded history, and each disability must be considered from the point of view of the appellant working or seeking work. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation is to be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. The Veteran's entire history is to be considered when making disability evaluations. See generally 38 C.F.R. 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995). Where entitlement to compensation already has been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Here, the relevant evidentiary window begins one year before the Veteran filed the claim for an increased rating, and continues to the present time. The Board will also consider entitlement to staged ratings to compensate for times since filing the claim when the disability may have been more severe than at other times during the course of the claim on appeal. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Ratings under Diagnostic Code 5243 The Veteran’s lumbar spine condition was rated under Diagnostic Code (DC) 5243. Under the Diagnostic Code (DC) 5243, intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) is rated either on the total duration of incapacitating episodes over the past 12 months or by combining separate evaluations of the chronic orthopedic and neurologic manifestations, whichever method results in the higher rating. See Bierman v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 125 (1994). However, assigning separate ratings for combination may not be permitted to result in pyramiding under 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 - which prohibits "[t]he evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses". See Brady v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 203, 206 (1993). See, too, Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994) (the critical element is if symptoms of one condition are duplicative of or overlapping of another). Thus, a rating for IVDS may not be assigned while at the same time assigning separate ratings for the orthopedic and the neurologic components of IVDS. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5243 for rating IVDS, a rating of 40 percent is warranted for intervertebral disc syndrome with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least four weeks but less than six weeks during the past 12 months. Finally, a rating of 60 percent is warranted for IVDS with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least six weeks during the past 12 months. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243. The revised IVDS rating criteria do not provide for an evaluation in excess of 60 percent on the basis of the total duration of incapacitating episodes. The criteria direct that IVDS be evaluated either on the total duration of incapacitating episodes over the past 12 months or under either the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, whichever method results in the higher evaluation. For purposes of evaluation under DC 5243, an incapacitating episode is a period of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that requires bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243, Note (1). In addition, a 40 percent rating is warranted for limited thoracolumbar motion when forward flexion is to 30 degrees or less; or, there is favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine; and 100 percent for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine for the period prior to November 2, 2017. The Veteran initially was rated at 20 percent disabling for his lumbar spine condition, effective December 8, 2004. In November 2017, the RO increased the rating from 20 percent to 40 percent, effective November 2, 2017. The Board will determine whether the Veteran was entitled to a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to November 2, 2017. In the Veteran’s service records from December 2002 to December 2004, there is a note about mechanical low back pain and strain in October 2003. In a March 2005 VA examination, the Veteran stated that his low back pain level is a ten (on a one to ten scale, ten being the worst). He states that he has incapacitating episodes four times per year, that last for three days. Over the past year, it was reported that he had eleven incapacitating episodes for a total of 20 days. Bed rest was recommended for the Veteran. During his physical examination, the range of motion was as follows: forward flexion was 90 degrees; extension was 30 degrees, right lateral flexion 30 degrees; left lateral flexion was 30 degrees; right rotation was 30 degrees; left rotation was 30 degrees; and the range of motion was not additionally limited by pain, fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance or incoordination after repetitive use. There were no signs of IVDS with chronic and nerve root involvement. There were no neurological abnormalities. In a September 2011 private medical evaluation, the Veteran complained of low back pain. The pain was described as constant; moderate to severe; and dull and achy. The Veteran’s range of motion was as follows: forward flexion was 50 degrees; extension was 10 degrees, right lateral flexion 10 degrees; left lateral flexion was 15 degrees; right rotation was 10 degrees; left rotation was 10 degrees. At the October 2011 hearing, the Veteran testified that he was always in pain due to his condition. He was taking hydrocodone, aspirin, and Tylenol for the pain. He stated that for about once every three to four weeks, he could not get out of bed. He describes moments where he could not move because of the pain. He stated that he could not lean forward to a 90-degree angle. In exam conducted two weeks ago, the doctor opined that his condition was getting worse. In an October 2014 VA examination, the Veteran contended that he was in constant pain. He stated that he experiences great pain when he gets up in the morning. The Veteran rated the pain at 6 most of time, stating that it will increase to a 20. When the pain is a 20, it would last for a couple of hours. The Veteran stated that he often could not sleep because of the pain. The Veteran reported having flare-ups, explaining that it mostly impacted him when lifting something heavy. The range of motion was noted as follows: forward flexion was 70 degrees; extension was 15 degrees; right lateral flexion was 15 degrees; left lateral flexion was 20 degrees; right rotation was 15 degrees; left rotation was 20 degrees. Painful motion was noted for right lateral flexion at 5 degrees; left lateral flexion at 10 degrees; right rotation at 15 degrees; and left rotation at 15 degrees. Repetitive use testing was conducted. The range of motion was noted as follows: forward flexion was 30 degrees; extension was 10 degrees; right lateral flexion was 15 degrees; left lateral flexion was 20 degrees; right rotation was 30 degrees or greater; and left rotation was 30 degrees or greater. The Veteran had additional limitation in range of motion following the repetitive-use testing, experiencing less movement than normal and pain on movement. Muscle strength testing results were normal. Reflex, sensory, and straight leg raising test results were normal. The Veteran did not have radiculopathy, ankylosis or IVDS. In the April 2016 VA examination, the Veteran contended that he wears a back brace for support and experiences daily pain. He rated the intensity of the pain a four out of ten. He experiences pain with prolonged sitting, walking, and standing. He may have intermittent pain that goes down the back of his left leg. The Veteran reported having flare-ups, stating that he has decreased range of movement with bending at the waist and turning sideways. During flare-ups, the Veteran rated the pain a ten out of ten. The range of motion was as follows: forward flexion was 65 degrees; extension was 20 degrees; right lateral flexion was 20 degrees; left lateral flexion was 20 degrees; right rotation was 20 degrees; left rotation was 20 degrees. The examiner noted that he had a decreased range of movement. He exhibited pain in forward flexing. There was objective evidence of localized pain or pain on palpation of the joints. Muscle strength, reflex, and sensory examination results were normal. The Veteran did not have radiculopathy, ankylosis, neurological abnormalities, or IVDS. The Veteran experiences functional impact from his back condition, specifically being unable to perform jobs that requires heavy or moderate activity. In a private examination dated May 2016, the Veteran was noted as having severe low back pain, with debilitating exacerbations, aggravated by activity or movement, and occasional left leg weakness with numbness and tingling. It was noted that he uses a back brace as a result of his back condition. In a VA treatment record dated August 2016, the results of a physical examination showed range of motion limitation in forward flexion, extension, right and left rotation and right and left flexion. The degrees to which the range of motion was limited were not noted in this examination. After consideration of the evidence, the Board finds that for the entire appeal period the Veteran's lumbar spine disability has more nearly approximated forward flexion to 30 degrees or less. The Board acknowledges that prior to November 2, 2017, the Veteran's forward flexion was to 65 degrees, with pain. However, when taking into consideration the Veteran's reported limitation during flare-ups, functional impairment, limitation due to pain and that the Veteran's contentions have essentially remained the same throughout this entire period, the Board resolves all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that prior to November 2, 2017, the Veteran's lumbar spine disability has more closely approximated the criteria contemplated in the 40 percent criteria. The Board also finds, however, that the evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has had ankylosis at any time. The Board notes that ankylosis is defined as immobility and consolidation of a joint due to disease, injury, or surgical procedure. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 93 (30th ed. 2003). See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, NOTE (5) (defining ankylosis as fixation of a joint in a particular position). In this case, the March 2005, October 2014, April 2016 and November 2017 VA examiners specifically found that the Veteran did not have ankylosis of the thoracolumbar spine. The Board has also considered whether a higher evaluation may be warranted due to incapacitating episodes associated with intervertebral disc syndrome. However, the lay and medical evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has had incapacitating episodes of the low back of at least four weeks during the past 12 months necessitating bed rest prescribed by a physician. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, Note 6. The Board recognizes that the Court held that the April 2016 VA examination was inadequate due to its noncompliance with Sharp. Since the Veteran is now in receipt of the maximum evaluation available for limitation of motion of the spine under the rating schedule, 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59 are not applicable. Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80, 85 (1997). Also, a 40 percent rating is assigned for favorable ankylosis. Fixation of a spinal segment in neutral position (zero degrees) always represents favorable ankylosis. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, Note (5). Thus, the 40 percent rating contemplates any episodes in which the Veteran's disability is so severe that he cannot move his back. The Board has also considered whether the Veteran is entitled to separate ratings for associated objective neurological abnormalities. However, the examinations noted that the Veteran does not display any neurological abnormalities. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that entitlement to 40 percent rating for his lumbar spine disability is warranted for the entire appeal period. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for DDD of the lumbar spine from November 2, 2017 Next, the Board has to determine whether the Veteran is entitled to a rating in excess of 40 percent for his lumbar spine disability. In order to warrant next higher rating of 50 percent, the evidence must show that the Veteran has unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. In order to warrant a rating of 60 percent, the Veteran must have had incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months. During the pendency of the appeal, a VA examination was conducted in November 2017. At the examination, the Veteran contended that he had constant back pain made worse with movement, sitting, standing, and walking. He did not report having any flare-ups or any functional impairment or loss. The range of motion was as follows: forward flexion was 20 degrees; extension was 0 degrees; right lateral flexion was 30 degrees; left lateral flexion was 10 degrees; right rotation was 5 degrees; left rotation was 5 degrees. The Veteran exhibited pain in all movements. The Veteran had decreased range of motion due to pain. There was objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint. There was evidence of pain with weight-bearing. Repetitive use testing was conducting, resulting in no additional decrease in range of motion. The Veteran did not have any ankylosis. He also did not experience any episodes or symptoms that would require bed rest from a physician. Muscle strength testing results showed active movement against some resistance in hip flexion and knee extension on both left and right sides. His reflex examination results showed that his knees and ankles were hypoactive. Sensory and straight leg raising test results were normal. The Veteran did not have any radiculopathy. No neurological abnormalities were shown on the examination. The recent VA examination in November 2017 showed that the Veteran did not have ankylosis. The VA examination noted that the Veteran has not experienced any incapacitating episodes recently that required bed rest from a physician. Based on the evidence of the record, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a rating in excess of 40 percent. A rating in excess of 40 percent for the Veteran’s lumbar spine condition is not warranted according to schedular criteria. Extraschedular Consideration In its May 2018 decision, the Court remanded the case for the Board to determine whether the Veteran’s claim warranted extraschedular consideration. The Veteran, through his representative, contends that he required frequent bed rest that prevented him from attaining employment, and required the use of a back support and brace. In exceptional cases an extraschedular rating may be provided. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (2014). The threshold factor for extraschedular consideration is a finding that the evidence before VA presents such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular evaluations for that service-connected disability are inadequate. Therefore, initially, there must be a comparison between the level of severity and symptomatology of the claimant's service-connected disability with the established criteria found in the rating schedule for that disability. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008). Under the approach prescribed by VA, if the criteria reasonably describe the claimant's disability level and symptomatology, then the claimant's disability picture is contemplated by the rating schedule, the assigned schedular evaluation is, therefore, adequate, and no referral is required. In the second step of the inquiry, however, if the schedular evaluation does not contemplate the claimant's level of disability and symptomatology and is found inadequate, the RO or Board must determine whether the claimant's exceptional disability picture exhibits other related factors such as those provided by the regulation as "governing norms." 38 C.F.R. 3.321 (b)(1) (related factors include "marked interference with employment" and "frequent periods of hospitalization"). When the rating schedule is inadequate to evaluate a claimant's disability picture and that picture has related factors such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, then the case must be referred to the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service for completion of the third step-a determination of whether, to accord justice, the claimant's disability picture requires the assignment of an extraschedular rating. Id. Turning now to the first step of the extraschedular analysis, the Board finds that the symptomatology and impairment caused by the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability before and after November 2, 2017 are specifically contemplated by the schedular rating criteria. The Veteran’s lumbar spine disability has been manifested by limited range of motion regarding flexion, symptoms of painful motion, and incapacitating episodes needing bed rest. These symptoms are incorporated and contemplated into the schedular rating criteria. The Board determines that since the symptoms are incorporated and contemplated into the schedular rating criteria, the second step of the extraschedular analysis is not necessary. The Board finds that referral for extraschedular consideration is not warranted before November 2, 2017 and thereafter. Total Disability Rating based on Unemployability (TDIU) A total disability rating for compensation purposes may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total, when it is found that the disabled person is 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 service-connected 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 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). Where these percentage requirements are not met, entitlement to benefits on an extraschedular basis may be considered when the Veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities, and consideration is given to the Veteran's background including his or her employment and educational history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). The Board does not have the authority to assign an extraschedular total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability in the first instance. Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (2001). In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the Veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but it may not be given to his or her age or to any impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. For a Veteran to prevail on a claim for a TDIU, the sole fact that a veteran is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. The question is whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the veteran can find employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to March 28, 2017. The Veteran filed a claim for increased rating for his lumbar spine condition in December 2006. The claim was also considered for TDIU in accordance with Rice. The Board notes that the Veteran was granted service connection for his heart condition in August 2017, with an effective date of March 28, 2017. In his September 2017 TDIU claim, the Veteran noted his heart condition as being one of the service-connected disabilities precluding him from sustaining gainful employment. In a June 2017 VA examination, it was noted that his heart condition affected his ability to work, specifically his ability to do strenuous activities. Based on this medical evidence, TDIU was granted to the Veteran, with an effective date of March 28, 2017. In order for the Veteran to be eligible for consideration of a TDIU rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16, the Veteran’s disability rating must meet the schedular criteria during the appeal period. In this case, prior to March 28, 2017, the Veteran was service-connected for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rated at 30 percent disabling, effective December 29, 2006; vertebral fracture with spine fusion, rated at 20 percent disabling, effective December 8, 2004; peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity associated with vertebral fracture with spine fusion, rated at 20 percent disabling, effective June 30, 2009; peripheral neuropathy, right upper extremity associated with vertebral fracture with spine fusion and degenerative disc disease, rated at 30 percent, effective October 18, 2014, degenerative disc disease lumbar spine, rated at 20 percent disabling, effective December 12, 2004; diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction, rated at 20 percent, effective July 29, 2011; tinnitus, rated at 10 percent disabling, effective December 29, 2006; gastrointestinal reflux disease, rated noncompensable, effective December 8, 2004. From December 8, 2004 to June 30, 2009, the Veteran did not meet the schedular criteria for TDIU, having a combined evaluation rating of 60 percent. Therefore, starting from June 30, 2009, the Veteran is eligible for consideration of a TDIU rating under 4.16(a), having a combined evaluation rating of 70 percent. Now, the Board has to determine whether the Veteran is unable to secure or follow substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected lumbar spine disability, specifically if the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment prior to March 28, 2017. At the March 2005 VA examination, the examiner noted that the functional impact was that he could not function when his back was aggravated. Per the Veteran, the condition resulted in three weeks of lost time from work per year. At the October 2011 hearing, the Veteran claimed that the most aggravating part in terms of working would be bending and sitting for any prolonged time. He states that he has to alternate between them. When asked the reasons for being unemployed, the Veteran believed that his age and economy were factors. He also was worried about having to perform strenuous work. In an October 2014 VA examination, it was noted that his lumbar spine condition does not affect his ability to work. In an April 2016 VA examination of his lumbar spine, the examiner noted that it would affect his ability to perform jobs that required heavy or moderate lifting, and requiring frequent bending at the waist. The examiner stated that the Veteran would be able to perform jobs that required light physical activity. In his September 2017 application for TDIU, he stated that he had applied a few times for an investigator job, in January 2006, January 2008, and January 2010. The Veteran noted that he took a security manager course from March 2003 to April 2003. The Veteran also had four years of college education. It was also noted that he did not leave his last job because of his disability. Based on the evidence of the record, there is no showing that the Veteran was unable to sustain gainful employment prior to March 28, 2017. The Veteran noted his age and economy as some of the reasons of not being able to obtain employment, not solely due to his disabilities at the time. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.19 (unemployability, in service-connected claims, associated with advancing age may not be used as a basis for a total disability rating). The medical evidence also establishes that his lumbar spine disability solely did not preclude him from sustaining gainful employment. The evidence shows that although his lumbar spine disability affected his ability to perform strenuous work, such as heavy lifting and bending, his spine condition would not have impacted his ability to perform in other environments not requiring heavy physical work. The Veteran has completed four years of college and received training in security management in 2003. He was physically and mentally capable of performing acts required by employment that comported with educational background and training prior to March 28, 2017. Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to TDIU before March 28, 2017 is not warranted. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Syesa Middleton, Associate Counsel