Citation Nr: 19144366 Decision Date: 06/10/19 Archive Date: 06/07/19 DOCKET NO. 15-11 797 DATE: June 10, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for the appellate period prior to June 5, 2015 for chronic adjustment disorder is DENIED. From June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016, entitlement to an increased rating of 50 percent, but no higher, for chronic adjustment disorder is GRANTED. From December 27, 2016 forward, entitlement to an increased rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for chronic adjustment disorder is GRANTED. REMANDED Entitlement to individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded for additional development. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For the appellate period prior to June 5, 2015, the Veteran’s service-connected chronic adjustment disorder was manifested by psychiatric symptoms causing occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks; occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity is not shown. 2. From June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016, the Veteran’s service-connected chronic adjustment disorder was manifested by psychiatric symptoms causing occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity; occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas is not shown. 3. From December 27, 2016 forward, the Veteran’s service-connected chronic adjustment disorder was manifested by psychiatric symptoms causing occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas; total occupational and social impairment is not shown. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for the appellate period prior to June 5, 2015 for chronic adjustment disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9440 (2018). 2. From June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016, the criteria for entitlement to an increased rating of 50 percent, but no higher, for chronic adjustment disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9440 (2018). 3. From December 27, 2016 forward, the criteria for entitlement to an increased rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for chronic adjustment disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9440 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service with the U.S. Army from September 1974 to January 1976. During this time, he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal. This matter comes to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) in Little Rock, Arkansas, which assigned the Veteran an initial evaluation of 30 percent for his service-connected chronic adjustment disorder from October 2009 forward. A review of the record reveals that a formal claim for entitlement to a TDIU was not filed in conjunction with the claim currently before the Board; rather, the Veteran subsequently filed a claim for TDIU in October 2011, which was denied by the Little Rock RO. The issue of the Veteran’s entitlement to TDIU flows from the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for his already service-connected chronic adjustment disorder. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App 447 (2009) (holding that, when evidence of unemployability is submitted during the course of an appeal from an assigned disability rating, a claim for a TDIU will be considered part and parcel of the claim for benefits for the underlying disability). Accordingly, the issue of entitlement to TDIU is properly included before the Board and has thus been added as an issue on appeal. Id. Increased Ratings VA has adopted a Schedule for Rating Disabilities to evaluate service-connected disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part IV. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. The percentage ratings in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities represent, as far as practicably can be determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from service-connected diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Generally, the degree of disabilities specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbation or illness proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities and the criteria for specific ratings. If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned to the disability picture that more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. Id. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The schedule recognizes that disability from distinct injuries or diseases may overlap. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. However, the evaluation of the same disability or its manifestation under various diagnoses, which is known as pyramiding, is to be avoided. Id. The Veteran’s chronic adjustment disorder has been rated as 30 percent disabling from October 29, 2009 forward, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9440, according to VA’s General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1. A 30 percent rating is warranted for occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease 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). Id. A 50 percent rating is warranted where the disorder is manifested by 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 (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent rating requires 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. The maximum 100 percent rating 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 symptoms associated with each evaluation under the General Rating Formula do not constitute an exhaustive list, but rather serve as examples of the type and degree of the symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). Thus, the evidence considered in determining the appropriate evaluation of a psychiatric disorder is not restricted to the symptoms set forth in the General Rating Formula. Id. Rather, VA must consider all symptoms of a claimant’s condition that affect his or her occupational and social impairment, including, if applicable, those identified in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM). Id. at 443. The Federal Circuit clarified that the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders requires not only (1) sufficient symptoms of the kind listed in the percentage requirements, or others of similar severity, frequency or duration; but also (2) that those symptoms cause the level of occupational and social impairment specified in the regulation. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 118 (Fed. Cir. 2013). If the evidence demonstrates that the claimant’s psychiatric disorder produces symptoms and resulting occupational and social impairment equivalent to that set forth in the criteria for a given rating in the General Rating Formula, then the appropriate, equivalent rating will be assigned. Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 443. In this regard, the Board must consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the Veteran’s capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (2016); Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 117 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (noting that the “frequency, severity, and duration” of a veteran’s symptoms “play an important role” in determining the disability level). While VA considers the level of social impairment, it shall not assign an evaluation based solely on social impairment. Id. Because the level of disability may have varied over the course of the claim, the rating may be “staged” higher or lower for segments of time during the period under review in accordance with such variations, to the extent the evidence shows distinct time periods where the service-connected disability has exhibited signs or symptoms that would warrant different ratings under the rating criteria. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). In initial rating cases, where the appeal stems from a granted claim of service connection with respect to the initial evaluation assigned, VA assesses the level of disability from the effective date of service connection. Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 125; 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. For increased-rating claims, where a claimant seeks a higher evaluation for a previously service-connected disability, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern, and VA considers the level of disability for the period beginning one year prior to the claim for a higher rating to determine whether and when an ascertainable increase has occurred. Hart, 21 Vet. App. at 509; Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994); Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 511, 519 (1992); 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (providing, in pertinent part, that reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant). When the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, the claim will be granted. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990); Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 532 (2014). If the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim, it must be denied. Id.; Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). The Board has reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claims and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to each claim. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000). 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for the appellate period prior to June 5, 2015 for chronic adjustment disorder The Veteran has asserted that a higher initial rating is warranted for his service-connected chronic adjustment disorder than the 30 percent currently assigned. Evaluating all the evidence of record, the Board finds that the frequency, severity, and duration of the Veteran’s reported psychiatric symptomatology more closely approximates the criteria for a 30 percent rating for the appellate period prior to June 5, 2015. In this regard, the evidence reflects that during this period, the Veteran’s service-connected chronic adjustment disorder is productive of occupational and social impairment with occasional decreases in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9440; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o). In particular, the evidence reflects that although he was generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and normal conversation, the Veteran’s chronic adjustment disorder was manifested predominantly by symptoms as depressed mood, anxiety, and chronic sleep impairment. See, e.g., February 2010 North Little Rock VANPH Addendum (diagnosing the Veteran with anxiety); March 2010 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Note (recording that the Veteran endorsed ongoing nightmares but was still working); June 2010 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Note (reflecting that the Veteran was continuing to have nightmares, but was not drinking and was still working); August 2010 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (indicating that the Veteran’s nightmares were not improving, and while he had been prescribed a CPAP machine, he refused to use it); December 2011 VA Initial Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) (diagnosing the Veteran with chronic adjustment disorder and noting that the Veteran reported that medication did not help with nightmares or recurrent memories); January 2012 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Note (documenting that the Veteran had not been seen since August 2010; noting that the Veteran reported ongoing daily nightmares; and observing that the Veteran did not appear visibly anxious, and when asked, could not describe any symptoms other than nightmares); April 2012 Central Arkansas HCS Mental Health Note (reflecting that the Veteran reported having nightmares several times a week; that he drinks when anxious; and that he was working full-time); April 2012 VA Mental Disorders DBQ (recording that the Veteran reported daily nightmares, which the examiner believed to actually be apneic episodes, which caused him to be tired with mild feelings of depression during the day, but that he had not missed work as a result of his poor sleep). The Board further finds that a rating in excess of 50 percent is not warranted for the appellate period prior to June 5, 2015, as the weight of the evidence does not show that the Veteran has 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 (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. A review of the evidence during this period reflects that the Veteran was working and maintained positive relationships with his wife and children. See, e.g., December 2011 VA Mental Disorders DBQ (recording that the Veteran reported being married for 21 years, was working, and enjoyed his job); January 2012 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Note (documenting that the Veteran expressed that while he was unable to relax with difficult-to-control inner unrest, this tension did not significantly affect his daily life); April 2012 Central Arkansas HCS Mental Health Note (indicating that the Veteran had been married for 20 years and was working full time); April 2012 VA Mental Disorders DBQ (noting that the Veteran reported having been married for 22 years, working, and enjoying his job). In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the criteria for an initial 30 percent rating, but no greater, are met for the appellate period prior to June 5, 2015. 2. From June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016, entitlement to an increased rating of 50 percent, but no higher, for chronic adjustment disorder However, evaluating all the evidence of record, the Board finds that from June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016, the frequency, severity, and duration of the Veteran’s reported psychiatric symptomatology more closely approximates the criteria for a 50 percent rating. In this regard, the evidence reflects that the Veteran’s service-connected chronic adjustment disorder is productive of occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9440; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (199). In particular, the evidence reflects that during the appeal period, the Veteran’s chronic adjustment disorder was manifested predominantly by symptoms of increased irritability, sleeping impairment, nightmares, anxiety, memory loss, and reduced interests. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9440. Accordingly, pursuant to VA law, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor that these symptoms, including difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships as well as mood disturbances, are best approximated by the assignment of a 50 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 9440 from June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Specifically, relevant evidence the appellate period indicates manifestations of anxiety; anger; increased irritability; chronic nightmares; isolating behaviors; intrusive thoughts; avoidance behaviors; hypervigilance; disturbances of motivation and mood; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. See, e.g., June 2015 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health E &M Note Addendum (indicating that the Veteran reported that more frequent nightmares were causing anxiety and depression during the day and that he has had thoughts of “cutting my head off”); September 2015 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (reflecting that the Veteran expressed that he was continuing to struggle with nightmares, as well as depressed mood, reduced interests, and passive thoughts of shooting himself); December 2015 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (indicating that the Veteran reported having flashbacks during the day, ongoing depression, lack of interest, and on and off passive thoughts of suicide, but was continuing to work); May 2016 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (recording that the Veteran reported having nightmares most nights, “intense memories” during the day, depressed mood, and general feelings of anxiety). See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9440. Accordingly, given the evidence of chronic psychiatric symptomatology productive of symptoms including anxiety; anger; increased irritability; chronic nightmares; and intrusive thoughts; the Board finds that, from June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016, the Veteran’s service-connected chronic adjustment disorder resulted in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.130, DC 9440. However, a rating in excess of 50 percent is not warranted from June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016, as the weight of the evidence does not show that the Veteran has occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, as contemplated by a higher 70 percent rating. Specifically, a review of the relevant medical evidence does not show that from June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016, the Veteran experienced intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; spatial disorientation; and/or neglect of personal appearance and hygiene as a result of his chronic adjustment disorder. Treatment records from June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016 do not reflect symptoms warranting a 70 percent rating. See, e.g., June 2015 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health E & M Note (reflecting that the Veteran was appropriately groomed, with normal speech, linear thought processes, was oriented times three, with intact memory and attention); September 2015 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (recording that the Veteran had appropriate hygiene, normal speech, linear thought processes, was alert and oriented, and had intact attention and memory); December 2015 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (indicating that the Veteran again had appropriate hygiene, normal speech, linear thought processes, was alert and oriented, and had intact memory and attention); May 2016 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (again noting that the Veteran had appropriate hygiene, intact memory, attention, and concentration, linear thought processes, normal speech, and was alert and oriented). Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that a rating in excess of 50 percent is not met from June 5, 2015 to December 27, 2016. 3. From December 27, 2016 forward, entitlement to an increased rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for chronic adjustment disorder Further, evaluating all the evidence of record, the Board finds that from December 27, 2016 forward, the frequency, severity, and duration of the Veteran’s reported psychiatric symptomatology more closely approximates the criteria for 70 percent rating. In this regard, the evidence reflects that the Veteran’s service-connected chronic adjustment disorder is productive of 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, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work like setting), and impaired impulse control. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9440; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (199). In particular, the evidence reflects that during this period, the Veteran’s chronic adjustment disorder was manifested predominantly by symptoms of suicidal ideation, mood swings, sleeping impairment, nightmares, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, difficulty concentrating, irritability, and isolative behaviors contributing to difficulty in maintaining relationships. See, e.g., December 2016 North Little Rock VANPH Attending Note (reflecting that the Veteran was dealing with increased anxiety as result of loud noises at his job, and reported placing a gun to his head after drinking, with his wife and son removing the gun); January 2017 North Little Rock VANPH Addendum (recording that the Veteran called in sick because he did could not go to work; having ongoing thoughts of self-harm, mood swinging from fearful to sad; ongoing nightmares; and requested a letter for work to go on light duty); January 2017 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Consult (indicating that the Veteran reported that his symptoms were unbearable and that he was willing to take his life; having difficulty concentrating at work; difficulties in his marital relationship; and feelings of inadequacy as a man and as a husband); February 2017 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (noting that the Veteran reported having on and off suicidal ideations that were always in the back of his mind; ongoing nightmares; avoiding groups of people due to anxiety and irritability; and feeling like he was seeing things out of the corner of his eye but nothing was there); May 2017 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (reporting that the Veteran expressed that he felt constantly depressed and irritated; had on and off passive suicidal ideations; did not want to be around people; and had little in the way of interests); August 2017 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (reflecting that the Veteran was now moved to a place by himself at work; had trouble with poor attention and staying on task; had ongoing suicidal ideations; was still dealing with chronic irritability and depression, and was still seeing things in his peripheral vision but nothing was there); November 2017 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (recording that the Veteran reported having ongoing nightmares; felt withdrawn; wanted to keep to himself; was irritable around other people; and felt constantly depressed); February 2018 North Little Rock VANPH Mental Health Medication Management Note (indicating that the Veteran had suicidal ideations, visual hallucinations, ongoing nightmares, and tried to avoid being around other people because they increased his anxiety); July 2018 VA Mental Disorder DBQ (documenting that the Veteran was now separated from his wife; has panic attacks and reduced interests; cannot stay on task when doing household chores; and that he stopped working in March 2018, and “has had problems getting along with others”). Accordingly, pursuant to VA law, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor that these symptoms, including difficulty in establishing and maintaining a job as well as an inability to establish and maintain effective social relationships, are best approximated by the assignment of a 70 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 9440 from December 27, 2016 forward. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. However, a rating in excess of 70 percent is not warranted from December 27, 2016 forward, as the weight of the evidence does not show that the Veteran has total occupational and social impairment as contemplated by a 100 percent schedular evaluation. In this regard, neither the Veteran’s January 2017 or July 2018 VA Mental Disorders examination reports describe symptoms such as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; 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). Likewise, such symptomatology is not identified in the remainder of the evidence to include the various treatment records and statements from the Veteran regarding his symptomatology. While the evidence of record reflects that the Veteran has previously thoughts of suicide, he has consistently denied having plans or intent to act on these thoughts, and has also on occasion denied having hallucinations as well. Further, the Board notes that he reported talking on the phone with his children and visiting the ones that lived in his state. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the criteria for a 70 percent rating, but no greater, for chronic adjustment disorder have been met from December 27, 2016 forward. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. As previously discussed earlier above, in accordance with the guidance set forth by Rice, the issue of TDIU is properly before the Board for consideration. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App 447 (2009). However, although the Board regrets the additional delay, the TDIU claim must be remanded before the Board is able to make a determination on the merits. Specifically, the Board finds that additional supporting evidence is required in developing this claim. At his July 2018 VA Mental Disorders examination, the Veteran reported that he stopped working in March 2018 and that he had problems getting along with others. The Veteran, however, has not provided the Board with information describing his work and educational history. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in order to obtain the requisite employment information to determine if the Veteran is eligible for a TDIU. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all VA treatment records for the Veteran from July 2018 to the present and associate them with the claims file. 2. The AOJ should provide the Veteran with appropriate notice regarding the TDIU claim and request that he complete a VA Form 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, describing the Veteran’s employment history. The AOJ should ask the Veteran to submit any additional evidence in support of a TDIU claim, to specifically include information on his work history, salary, and educational history. 3. After all available evidence has been associated with the record, the AOJ should review the evidence and determine if further development is warranted for TDIU. The AOJ should take any additional development as deemed necessary. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Raj, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.