Citation Nr: 18157362 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 11-20 209 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER 1. Entitlement to an initial increased rating in excess of 0 percent for bilateral hearing loss prior to February 4, 2015 is denied. 2. Entitlement to an initial increased rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss after February 4, 2015 is denied. 3. Entitlement to an initial increased rating in excess of 30 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prior to June 13, 2011 is denied. 4. Entitlement to an initial increased rating in excess of 70 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after June 13, 2011 is denied. 5. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to March 3, 2012 is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The probative evidence of record reflects that the Veteran has no more than Level II hearing loss in his right ear and Level II hearing loss in his left ear, evaluated as non-compensable, prior to February 4, 2015. 2. The probative evidence of record reflects that the Veteran has no more than Level III hearing loss in his right ear and Level IV hearing loss in his left ear, evaluated at 10 percent, after February 4, 2015. 3. Since the grant of service connection until June 13, 2011, the Veteran’s PTSD has been manifested by no more than occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, and mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). 4. Since June 13, 2011, the Veteran’s PTSD has been manifested by no more than 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); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 5. None of the Veteran’s disabilities, including his PTSD, rendered him unable to secure or maintain a substantially gainful occupation, prior to March 3, 2012. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 0 percent for bilateral hearing loss prior to February 4, 2015 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.10, 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. 2. The criteria for entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss after February 4, 2015 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.10, 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. 3. The criteria for entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD prior to June 13, 2011 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 4. The criteria for entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD after June 13, 2011 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 5. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU prior to March 3, 2012 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.1, 4.3, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the Army from October 1967 to October 1970. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) through an appeal of the July 2010 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO). The RO granted service connection for PTSD and bilateral hearing loss in July 2010. At that time, the Veteran’s PTSD was rated at 30 percent, effective August 2007, and his bilateral hearing loss was assigned a noncompensable rating. See Rating Decision dated July 2010. The Veteran then appealed the ratings assigned. In April 2015, the RO increased the service-connected PTSD’s rating to 70 percent, effective June 2011, and the RO increased the rating for bilateral hearing loss to 10 percent, effective February 2015. The Veteran had originally requested a hearing, but he withdrew that request. See Hearing Related Letter dated September 2017. Increased Rating 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss prior to February 2015 The Veteran contends that he should receive an increased rating for his bilateral hearing loss because his hearing has gotten worse. See VA 21-4138 dated November 2007. The Veteran was rated for his bilateral hearing loss under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. Disability evaluations for hearing impairment are derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are rendered. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). Examinations are conducted using the controlled speech discrimination tests together with the results of the pure tone audiometry test. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The results are analyzed using tables contained in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. The rating schedule for hearing loss provides that evaluations of hearing loss range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of controlled speech discrimination tests together with average hearing threshold levels as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 cycles per second (Hertz). To evaluate the degree of disability from defective hearing, the rating schedule established eleven auditory acuity levels designated from level I for essentially normal acuity through level XI for profound deafness. Id. There are also exceptional patterns of hearing impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. The Veteran received audiologic evaluations in March 2006, September 2007, October 2008, July 2010, and February 2015. His March 2006 VA examination showed pure tone thresholds of air conduction, in decibels, as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 20 55 55 65 LEFT 10 15 60 55 70 Average pure tone thresholds were 48.75 decibels for the right ear and 50 decibels for the left ear. The examiner noted that the speech recognition score in the right ear was 92 percent for the right ear and 88 percent for the left ear. Using these values, the results of the March 2006 examination utilizing Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields level I hearing in the right ear and level I hearing in the left ear. When combined, level I and level I hearing yield a noncompensable evaluation. His September 2007 VA examination showed pure tone thresholds of air conduction, in decibels, as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 20 55 60 60 LEFT 10 20 60 60 65 Average pure tone thresholds were 48.75 decibels for the right ear and 51.25 decibels for the left ear. The examiner noted that the speech recognition score in the right ear was 98 percent for the right ear and 92 percent for the left ear. Using these values, the results of the September 2007 examination utilizing Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields level I hearing in the right ear and level I hearing in the left ear. When combined, level I and level I hearing yield a noncompensable evaluation. His October 2008 VA examination showed pure tone thresholds of air conduction, in decibels, as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 20 55 60 60 LEFT 10 20 60 60 65 Average pure tone thresholds were 48.75 decibels for the right ear and 51.25 decibels for the left ear. The examiner noted that the speech recognition score in the right ear was 98 percent for the right ear and 92 percent for the left ear. Using these values, the results of the October 2008 examination utilizing Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields level I hearing in the right ear and level I hearing in the left ear. When combined, level I and level I hearing yields a noncompensable evaluation. His July 2010 VA examination showed pure tone thresholds of air conduction, in decibels, as follows:   HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 25 60 60 65 LEFT 15 25 60 60 70 Average pure tone thresholds were 52.5 decibels for the right ear and 53.75 decibels for the left ear. The examiner noted that the speech recognition score in the right ear was 90 percent for the right ear and 88 percent for the left ear. Using these values, the results of the July 2010 examination utilizing Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields level II hearing in the right ear and level II hearing in the left ear. When combined, level II and level II hearing yields a noncompensable evaluation. Under the rating criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, the audiologic findings indicate that the a compensable rating prior to February 4, 2015 is not warranted. The rating criteria contemplates the functional effects of decreased hearing and difficulty understanding speech, and these effects are what VA’s audiometric tests are designed to measure. Thus, when a Veteran’s hearing loss results in an inability to hear or understand speech or hear other sounds in various contexts, such as here, these effects are contemplated by the schedular criteria. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369 (2017). Therefore, a compensable rating prior to February 4, 2015 is denied. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss after February 2015 The Veteran contends that he should be rated at higher than 10 percent for his bilateral hearing loss. He reports that he has difficulty understanding conversational speech and has difficulty hearing at distances and without visual cues. See February 2015 VA Examination. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in February 2015 which showed pure tone thresholds of air conduction, in decibels, as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 35 65 65 70 LEFT 20 35 60 65 75 Average pure tone thresholds were 58.75 decibels for the right ear and 58.75 decibels for the left ear. The examiner noted that the speech recognition score in the right ear was 84 percent for the right ear and 80 percent for the left ear. Using these values, the results of the February 2015 examination utilizing Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields level III hearing in the right ear and level IV hearing in the left ear. When combined, level III and level IV hearing yields a rating of 10 percent. Under the rating criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, the audiologic findings indicate that the appropriate rating for the Veteran is a rating of 10 percent from February 4, 2015. The rating criteria contemplates the functional effects of decreased hearing and difficulty understanding speech, and these effects are what VA’s audiometric tests are designed to measure. Thus, when a Veteran’s hearing loss results in an inability to hear or understand speech or hear other sounds in various contexts, such as here, these effects are contemplated by the schedular criteria. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369 (2017). Therefore, a rating of higher than 10 percent after February 4, 2015 is denied. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD prior to June 2011 The Veteran contends that his service-connected PTSD has increased in severity. The Veteran states that he has had physical confrontations with neighbors and family members and that he cannot sleep without medication. See VA 21-4138 dated June 2013. The Veteran also reports having symptoms of insomnia, thrashing around in bed at night, nightmares, and anger. See VA 21-4138 dated June 2010; Congressional Inquiry dated August 2008; Letter from the Veteran dated March 2008. The Veteran’s PTSD was rated at 30 percent from August 2007 until June 2011. In June 2011, the Veteran underwent a private examination. Therefore, the Board will discuss the appellate period prior to June 2011 and the Veteran’s rating of 30 percent prior to June 2011. Disability ratings are determined by application of the criteria set forth in VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. When a question arises as to which of two ratings applies under a particular diagnostic code, the higher rating is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. Otherwise, the lower rating applies. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The Veteran’s entire history is to be considered when making disability evaluations. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995). Consideration of the appropriateness of “staged ratings” (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); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The criteria for evaluating PTSD are found in the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. Under the general rating formula, a 30 percent rating requires occupational and social impairment with occasional decreases in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; panic attacks (weekly or less often); chronic sleep impairment; and mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). A 50 percent evaluation is warranted where there is occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands, impairment of short and long-term memory; impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; and, difficultly in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent evaluation is warranted where there is 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); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A 100 percent evaluation requires 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. Id. 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). The Veteran underwent a VA examination in July 2010. During the course of the examination, the Veteran reported having close relationships with his son and several friends; as well as residing with a female friend. See VA Examination dated July 2010. The Veteran reported having difficulty falling asleep, nightmares, daytime fatigue, occasional panic symptoms, mild short-term memory problems, recurring recollections of trauma, irritability, social avoidance, depressed mood, and decreased motivation. He denied any recent suicidal or homicidal ideation. The examiner found some level of social and occupational impairment, including deficiencies due to PTSD within the Veteran’s thinking and mood, but found no deficiencies when it came to judgment, family relations, and work. See VA Examination dated July 2010. The Board finds the July 2010 VA examination to hold significant probative weight because the examiner provided a thorough analysis of the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms, including consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements. The Veteran’s medical treatment records show symptoms of panic attacks, anxiety, irritability, nightmares, trouble sleeping, and severe hyperarousal symptoms prior to June 2011. See VA Treatment Records dated January 2009, December 2008, November 2007, October 2007, and August 2007. A lay statement was submitted from D.R. which discussed how the Veteran is unable to sleep due to his nightmares and that he sometimes thrashes and kicks wildly in his sleep. She also states that he is stressed, is very shaky, and gets worked up easily. See Lay Statement from D.R. dated June 2010. The Board finds the lay statement to hold some probative value as it supports the Veteran’s contentions that his symptoms are getting worse, including not being able to sleep well at night. In examining the lay statements and the medical evidence from prior to June 2011, the Board finds that the Veteran’s symptoms most nearly approximate a 30 percent rating, and a higher rating is not warranted. While the Veteran reports having panic attacks, there is no indication within the record that the frequency of these panic attacks are greater than once a week. The Veteran’s symptoms related to his stress, anger, nightmares, and difficulty sleeping are contemplated within the 30 percent rating criteria. Furthermore, the July 2010 VA examination showed that the Veteran had little social and occupational impairment and was able to maintain familial and social relationships. While there is some indication that the Veteran had some difficulty functioning at work prior to June 2011, the medical records show that those instances were occasional and only occurred intermittently. See Medical Treatment Records dated August 2007; VA Examination dated July 2010. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Veteran’s impairment occupationally and socially was with only occasional decreases in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks. As such, the Board finds that a rating higher than 30 percent for the appellate period prior to June 2011 is not warranted. 4. Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD after June 2011 The Veteran contends that his service-connected PTSD should have a rating higher than 70 percent after June 2011. He asserts that he has been struggling with depression and anger issues since 1970, but that it has gotten so bad that he had to be put on strong medication and is unable to drive a truck for a living. See VA 21-4138 dated June 2013. The June 2011 private examiner opined that the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms had increased in severity and that the Veteran was experiencing poor concentration, poor attention, an inability to work around or with people, low self-esteem, explosive anger, flashbacks, poor sleep, marginal family life, and no social life. Based in part on that assessment, the RO increased the Veteran’s disability rating to 70 percent, effective June 2011. As noted above, a 100 percent evaluation, the next higher rating available after the 70 percent disability rating, is warranted when there is evidence of total occupational and social impairment. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran had such total occupational and social impairment due to PTSD. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in February 2015. The examiner found that the Veteran’s PTSD is his primary diagnosis and that his PTSD symptoms are exacerbated by his Cannibis Use and Alcohol Use disorders. The examiner found that the Veteran’s symptoms include onset insomnia, racing thoughts, frequent awakenings with agitation, nightmares, irritability, and depression. The examiner did not find signs of psychosis, homicidal ideation, or an imminent risk to self or others. The examiner did find that the Veteran had experienced suicidal ideations in October 2014. Ultimately, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s PTSD and accompanying disorders lead to reduced reliability and productivity which create an occupational and social impairment. See VA Examination dated February 2015. The Board finds that February 2015 VA examination holds significant probative weight because the examiner’s opinion is based on a thorough review of the evidence and is supported by a clear rationale. The Veteran’s medical records indicate that he was admitted to the hospital for suicidal ideation in October 2014. See VAMC Report of Hospitalization dated October 2014. His records also indicate chronic depression, angry feelings, panic attacks, and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances. See VA Treatment Records dated November 2011; September 2011; October 2013. In addition, the records show the Veteran’s increased inability to control his anger and poor impulse control, including physical altercations with neighbors and family members. See VA Treatment Records dated April 2013; May 2013. During the period of June 2011 to the present, the Veteran has shown symptoms which more closely align with the 70 percent rating than a 100 percent rating. The records do not show evidence of gross impairment in thought process or communication, persistent danger of hurting self or others, disorientation to time or place, or memory loss of names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. The Veteran does experience nightmares, flashbacks, and delusions and has a history involving risk to himself, but these instances are contemplated under the 70 percent rating criteria. Furthermore, the Veteran’s symptoms do not render him totally occupationally and socially impaired as contemplated under the Rating Criteria. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the current rating of 70 percent for the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD from June 2011 to the present. Therefore, a rating higher than 70 percent is denied. 5. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to March 3, 2012 A request for an increased rating may also raise a request for a Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU) when either expressly raised by a Veteran or reasonably raised by the record. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Here, the Veteran made statements prior to March 2012 which indicated an increased difficulty at work and with maintaining employment. See VA Medical Records dated September 2011; November 2011. Therefore, a request for a TDIU was raised by the record. Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when a veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that if there is only one such disability, such disability shall be ratable as 60 percent or more, and if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: disabilities of one or both upper extremities or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable; disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident; disabilities affecting a single body system; multiple injuries incurred in action; or multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. Id. Unlike the regular disability rating schedule, which is based on the average work-related impairment caused by a disability, “entitlement to a TDIU is based on an individual’s particular circumstances.” Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2009). Therefore, when adjudicating a TDIU claim, VA must take into account the individual veteran’s education, training, and work history. Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991) (level of education is a factor in deciding employability); see Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 294 (1994) (considering Veteran’s experience as a pilot, his training in business administration and computer programming, and his history of obtaining and losing 19 jobs in the previous 18 years); Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532 (1994) (considering Veteran’s 8th grade education and sole occupation as a farmer); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991) (considering Veteran’s master’s degree in education and his part-time work as a tutor). The Veteran has been service-connected for PTSD, which is rated as 70 percent disabling since June 13, 2011. In addition, the Veteran is service-connected for tinnitus with a 10 percent rating since August 2007 and bilateral hearing loss with a 10 percent rating since February 2015. He is in receipt of a combined disability rating of 70 percent as of June 13, 2011, 80 percent as of February 4, 2015, and 100 percent as of March 3, 2012. Therefore, he has met the schedular threshold criteria for consideration of a TDIU since June 13, 2011. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). The Veteran was granted a TDIU, effective March 3, 2012, in a separate rating decision. See Rating Decision dated July 2015. Therefore, the Board will focus on the period between June 13, 2011 to March 3, 2012, when the Veteran met the schedular threshold for consideration of a TDIU. As discussed further below, upon review of the evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD has not rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation prior to March 3, 2012. The question in a TDIU claim is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the veteran can find employment. A high disability rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment. See Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). There must be a determination that the service-connected disabilities are sufficient to produce unemployability without regard to advancing age or a nonservice-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. The Veteran’s records indicate that he worked as a truck repair mechanic. See VA Examination dated February 2015; VA Treatment Records dated November 2011. The Veteran stated on his application for a TDIU that his last day of full-time work was March 2, 2015. See VA 21-8940 dated June 2015. He also reported that he stopped working in 2012 to the February 2015 VA examiner and to his physician. See VA Examination dated February 2015; see also VA Treatment Record dated April 2012. The Veteran’s medical treatment records from between June 2011 and March 2012 show that the Veteran was having increased difficulty in the workplace. Records from September 2011 show the Veteran reported having “great difficulty” maintaining his job to a treating physician. See VA Treatment Record dated September 2011. A physician in November 2011 stated that the Veteran was having “difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting” and opined that he was unemployable for gainful employment activity at that time. See VA Treatment Record dated November 2011. However, the medical records also indicate that the Veteran continued working as a truck mechanic during that time. See VA Treatment Record dated November 2011. The Board finds the Veteran’s lay statements as to when he ceased maintaining substantially gainful employment have significant probative weight because they are consistent and supported by the evidence of record. The Board assigns little probative weight to the November 2011 physician’s opinion regarding the Veteran’s unemployability because, while the Board does find that the Veteran had trouble in the workplace, he was still able to maintain substantially gainful employment through that time. The question of employability is ultimately a legal one, not a medical question. Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In reviewing all of the evidence of record, it is clear that while the Veteran’s PTSD caused some difficulty working prior to 2012, he was still able to maintain substantially gainful employment until March 2012. Therefore, entitlement to a TDIU prior to March 3, 2012 is denied. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Bognar, Associate Counsel