Citation Nr: 19156136 Decision Date: 07/19/19 Archive Date: 07/19/19 DOCKET NO. 14-30 203 DATE: July 19, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the probative evidence of record indicates that the Veteran’s service-connected disability has rendered him unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a TDIU have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1988 to March 2008. During the pendency of this appeal, the claim for an increased rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was adjudicated in an April 2018 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision, and this decision was not appealed. Therefore this issue is no longer in appellate status before the Board. In this decision, the Board also remanded the claim for entitlement to a TDIU for additional development. 1. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities Total disability ratings are authorized for any disability or combination of disabilities provided the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment because of the severity of his service-connected disabilities. If there is only one such disability, it must be rated as at least 60 percent disabling. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). 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. Id. In this case, the Veteran is service-connected for PTSD at 70 percent disabling and meets the preliminary schedular criteria for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) from the date he filed his claim for service connection for PTSD. Id. The evidence shows that the Veteran has worked primarily in information technology (IT) jobs and his highest level of education was high school. When viewed as a whole, the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran was not capable of substantially gainful employment as a result of his service-connected disabilities, namely PTSD. In an August 2010 VA mental health evaluation, the Veteran reported having joined the Navy after high school and, after leaving the Navy in 2008, he was employed as a civilian employee at Fort Eustace near Richmond, Virginia doing IT supervision. He reportedly lost this job after letting a security breach get through. He then reported working at Circuit City, which went bankrupt later that year. Thereafter, he was employed at Mount Air Chicken but eventually left the job because the chicken blood and smells reminded him of his past trauma. At that time, the Veteran reported attempting to find other positions but was told he was overqualified and was unemployed at the time of his appointment. In a September 2010 VA medical center (VAMC) psychosocial residential rehabilitation treatment program, a VA social worker found the Veteran had become impoverished financially because he was unable to hold a job. A February 2012 VA outpatient treatment report reflects the Veteran’s reports of vividly describing his inability to find a job and severe economic difficulties. In the March 2012 VA examination for PTSD and March 2012 VA social and industrial examination, the Veteran reported having completed 12th grade prior to military service and had worked in few brief jobs in technology after his active service, the last job being one year earlier. However, he stated he had unprofessional altercations at work, angry outbursts and behavioral problems. In a July 2012 Social Security Administration (SSA) mental health evaluation, the Veteran reported a history of working in two IT jobs and was fired from both of them, noting his low frustration tolerance and fighting with peers and supervisors in the work place. In an October 2012 Vet Center report, a VA social worker found the Veteran was homeless due to his PTSD being so severe he could not hold a job and opined that he was unable to work due to PTSD. She found that his PTSD symptoms impaired his employment prospects and ability to maintain a job and his anxiety made it impossible to tolerate a work environment. The social worker also found the Veteran had not been employable since 2009. Although the Veteran was denied entitlement to SSA disability benefits, in the November 2012 decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that the Veteran had not engaged in substantially gainful employment since March 1, 2010, his severe impairments included depression and anxiety, and that he was unable to perform any past relevant work. More recent VA outpatient treatment records reflect the Veteran had reported having new jobs in February 2017 at a home for the chronically ill and again in June 2018 at a bank. Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the probative evidence of record demonstrates that he was unemployable or capable of no more than marginal employment due to his service-connected PTSD. Even when considering the Veteran’s education and work history/skills, the evidence shows that his PTSD symptoms are so severe that he is unable to tolerate any kind of work environment. While he had taken on a couple jobs during the appeal period, the evidence shows that these jobs were no more than marginal employment, given their short duration. In considering the above, the Board finds that the Veteran is not capable of substantially gainful employment or capable of only marginal employment during the appeal period. Accordingly, the criteria for a TDIU are met. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Saira Spicknall, 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.