Citation Nr: 19166327 Decision Date: 08/27/19 Archive Date: 08/27/19 DOCKET NO. 18-54 322 DATE: August 27, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for tension-type headaches is dismissed. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 for a separate evaluation for tension-type headaches is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury is denied. Prior to February 8, 2016, entitlement to an initial rating for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury of 70 percent is granted. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A June 2018 Board decision considered the merits of an increased rating claim for his service-connected head injury. The Board denied a compensable rating for the service-connected head injury but assigned a separate rating of 50 percent, but no higher, for tension-type headaches. The Veteran neither appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) nor filed a motion for reconsideration to the Board. 2. In July 2018, the Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision, which implemented the June 2018 Board decision with regard to the assignment of a separate rating of 50 percent, but no higher, for tension-type headaches. 3. On December 11, 2012, the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for his service-connected head injury was received. 4. It is not factually ascertainable that the Veteran’s tension-type headaches manifested to a compensable degree within a year prior to December 11, 2012. 5. On February 27, 2008, the Board issued a decision denying entitlement to service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. The Veteran neither appealed that decision to the CAVC nor filed a motion for reconsideration to the Board. 6. On December 11, 2012, a petition to reopen the Veteran’s claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia was received by VA. 7. Prior to December 11, 2012, there were no pending formal or informal claims showing intent to apply for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. 8. Prior to February 8, 2016, the Veteran’s paranoid schizophrenia symptoms and impairment more nearly approximated occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas. 9. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran’s paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury has not manifested with symptoms that result in functional impairment that more nearly approximates total occupational and social impairment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The June 2018 Board decision is final. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7103 (a), 7266 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (2018). 2. The issue of the rating assigned for tension-type headaches by the July 2018 rating decision cannot be challenged because the issue was previously and finally addressed by the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (2018). 3. The current appeal seeking an increased rating for tension-type headaches presents no case or controversy to the Board and therefore is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (d) (2012). 4. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 for the grant of a separate compensable evaluation for tension-type headaches are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5110, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2018). 5. The February 2008 Board decision is final. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7103 (a), 7266 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (2018). 6. The criteria for an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 for the grant of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.151, 3.155, 3.157, 3.159, 3.400 (2018). 7. Prior to February 8, 2016, the criteria for the assignment of a 70 percent rating for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury were met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 8045-9201 (2018). 8. Throughout the appeal period, the criteria for a rating in excess of 70 percent for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, DC 8045-9201 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 1979 to May 1983. In an August 2018 rating decision, the VA Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. A noncompensable rating was assigned, effective February 8, 2013; a 30 percent rating was assigned, effective July 23, 2014. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the assigned ratings in September 2018. Subsequent to the Veteran’s appeal, the RO granted a 70 percent rating for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury, effective February 8, 2016, and a 30 percent rating, effective December 11, 2012. These grants, however, did not represent a total grant of benefits sought for the entire period on appeal; accordingly, the Veteran’s claim for a higher initial disability rating for his paranoid schizophrenia remains pending before the Board. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). The Board notes that the December 2018 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) indicated that an issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the evaluation of 70 percent for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury, effective February 8, 2016, was currently on appeal. Issues before the Board may be phrased in various manners. The issue may be phrased as entitlement to an earlier effective date for a 70 percent rating for paranoid schizophrenia. The issue may also be phrased as entitlement to a 70 percent rating for paranoid schizophrenia prior to February 8, 2016. The grant of any compensation benefit necessarily includes implementation of an award and the selection of an effective date, since no award is granted in a legal vacuum. Here, the Board has phrased the issue as entitlement to a higher initial rating for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury rated as 30 percent disabling prior to February 8, 2016, and rated 70 percent disabling, thereafter because, in essence, the RO has granted a staged rating and part of the appeal has been satisfied by the grant of the 70 percent rating from February 8, 2016. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (staged ratings are appropriate for any rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods during the appeal period where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings). There is therefore no issue with regard to an impermissible freestanding claim for an earlier effective date. Cf. Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296 (2006). As this issue encompasses the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to a 70 percent rating for paranoid schizophrenia prior to February 8, 2016, it will not be separately addressed. The Board notes that the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) was remanded by the Board in June 2018 for additional development. After the additional development was completed, the RO granted the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to a TDIU in a December 2018 rating decision. An effective date of December 11, 2012 was assigned based on the date that the Veteran filed his claim for an increased rating. As discussed further below, an effective date prior to December 11, 2012, for the grant of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury has been denied. As entitlement to a TDIU has been granted for the entire period on appeal, this constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal and this issue is not before the Board. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. at 38 (1993). Lastly, the Board notes that the Veteran was previously represented by Attorney J. Michael Woods during the course of this appeal. See VA Form 21-22, Appointment of Individual as Claimant’s Representative received March 23, 2015. In a February 2019 letter, shortly after certification of the Veteran’s appeal to the Board, Mr. Woods attempted to withdraw his services as the Veteran’s representative. A copy of this letter was also sent to the Veteran. The Board notes that the decision to withdraw from representation after certification of an appeal is not a unilateral choice to be exercised at the discretion of the representative. Once an appeal has been certified to the Board, a representative may not withdraw without showing good cause through a written motion. 38 C.F.R. § 20.608. Here, the attorney submitted a withdrawal after certification of the appeal to the Board and did not provide good cause reasons for doing so. Mr. Woods has not made an appropriate motion to withdraw representation, as prescribed by 38 C.F.R. § 20.608, and the Veteran has not appointed a new representative. Thus, the attorney remains the appointed representative for the purposes of deciding this appeal. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for tension-type headaches As an initial matter, the Board notes that the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for his service-connected head injury, rated under DC 8045 was considered by the Board on the merits in June 2018. The Board denied a compensable rating for the service-connected head injury but assigned a separate rating of 50 percent, but no higher, for tension-type headaches. A decision was issued by the Board on June 19, 2018 and became final on that date. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100. Review of that decision was available by appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), 38 U.S.C. § 7266, or by filing a motion for reconsideration at the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (a). In July 2018, the RO issued a rating decision, which in part, implemented the decision by the Board to grant a separate 50 percent rating for tension-type headaches. The Veteran expressed disagreement with the RO’s rating assigned for tension-type headaches in the July 2018 rating decision. The Board, however, already addressed the merits of whether a rating in excess of 50 percent was warranted for the Veteran’s tension-type headaches in the final June 2018 Board decision, and the Veteran neither appealed to the Court nor moved the Board to reconsider. The July 2018 rating decision to the extent that implemented the rating granted by the Board’s decision, was not appealable. As the matter has been settled in a final Board decision, there is no remaining case or controversy before the Board with respect to entitlement to a separate rating in excess of 50 percent for tension-type headaches. Accordingly, the matter is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (d). Entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to December 11, 2012 for a separate evaluation for tension-type headaches In a July 2018 rating decision, the RO implemented the grant of a separate evaluation for tension-type headaches, effective December 11, 2012. In September 2018, the Veteran argued that an earlier effective date for the grant of separate rating should be provided. As the effective date of the separate rating was not determined in the June 2018 Board decision, this issue was validly appealed by the Veteran. Unfortunately, the Board finds that the earliest possible effective date was granted by the RO and the Veteran’s claim must be denied. Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. An exception to the general rule applies where evidence demonstrates that a factually ascertainable increase in disability occurred within the one-year period prior to the date of receipt of the claim for increased compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(2) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(2) (2018); Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982-84 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under these circumstances, the effective date of the award is the earliest date at which it was ascertainable that an increase occurred. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(2) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(2) (2018); Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125, 126 (1997). If the increase occurred more than one year prior, the increase is effective the date of the claim. Gaston, 605 F. 3d 979; see also Harper, 10 Vet. App. at 126-127. Here, the Veteran was granted a separate rating for tension-type headaches from the date that his claim for an increased rating for his service-connected head injury was received by VA, December 11, 2012. The claims file indicates that on December 11, 2012 the RO received a statement from the Veteran requesting to “re-open his claim for an increase” for his service-connected head trauma. As the Veteran’s claim stemmed from a claim for an increased rating, the effective date assigned was either the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, unless it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred within a year of the date of the Veteran’s claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(2). Unfortunately, the Board finds that the evidence does not demonstrate a date within one year prior to the date of the Veteran’s claim that it is factually ascertainable that his headaches manifested to a compensable degree. Rather, the evidence indicates that the Veteran has a long history of headaches due to his service-connected condition. During his 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported headaches that began back when he was in service and that he suffers headaches that require him to lie down at least once per week. A July 2003 VA examination indicates that the Veteran reported headaches as often as two to three times a week and that they last, for a period of hours, sometimes days. As such, the evidence indicates that the Veteran’s headache condition manifested to a compensable degree more than a year prior to the Veteran’s December 11, 2012 claim for an increased rating. The Board also finds that the Veteran did not have a pending claim for a separate rating for his tension-type headaches prior to December 11, 2012. In an August 2003 rating decision, the Veteran was denied service connection for tension-type headaches as secondary to his service-connected head injury. The Veteran did not appeal this denial and it became final. The evidence does not indicate a pending claim for a separate rating for headaches was filed between the Veteran’s August 2003 rating decision and the Veteran’s December 11, 2012 claim. As the evidence does not indicate that the Veteran requested a separate rating based upon his tension-type headaches symptoms between August 13, 2003 and his December 11, 2012 claim, and the Board does not find that it is factually ascertainable that his headache disability manifested to a compensable degree in the year prior to December 11, 2012. The Board, therefore, finds that an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 is not warranted for the grant of separate entitlement to tension-type headaches based upon the date of the Veteran’s claim. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury As noted above, the RO granted service connection for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury, effective December 11, 2012, in a July 2018 rating decision. In September 2018, the Veteran filed an NOD that disagreed with the effective date assigned for the grant of service connection. Unfortunately, the Board does not find that an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 is warranted for the grant of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. The current claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder was received on December 11, 2012 and there were no pending claims prior to that date. As such, entitlement to an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 must be denied. Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date for a grant of service connection is the day after separation from service or day entitlement arose, if a claim is received within one year of separation from service; otherwise, the date of receipt of claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(1) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2)(i) (2018). The Veteran’s current effective date has been granted from the date of his claim for entitlement to a psychiatric disorder. Therefore, an earlier effective date could only be granted based upon a claim pending prior to the date of his December 11, 2012 claim. The Board notes that a claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia was previously denied by the Board on February 27, 2008. The decision became final on that date. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100. The Veteran did not appeal the decision to the CVAC or file a motion for reconsideration at the Board. The evidence does not indicate that there was a pending formal or informal claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia between February 27, 2008 and the Veteran’s December 11, 2012 claim. The only claim received by VA between the February 27, 2008 denial for paranoid schizophrenia and December 11, 2012 claim was a March 7, 2008 claim for service connection for PTSD. To the extent that the Veteran’s claim for PTSD may be construed as a claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia, the claim was denied by the RO in an August 8, 2008 rating decision. The Veteran did not appeal this rating decision and it became final. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104 (a), 20.1103 (2018). In conclusion, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claim for service-connection for paranoid schizophrenia was received by VA on December 11, 2012, and there is no evidence of record to show that there was any communication from the Veteran indicating the intent to apply for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia, constituting a pending claim, between the final February 2008 Board decision and the Veteran’s December 11, 2012 claim. Accordingly, the effective date for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia is the date the claim to reopen was received on December 11, 2012. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2018). As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt does not apply, and the Veteran’s claim for an effective date prior to December 11, 2012 for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Entitlement to a higher initial rating for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury rated as 30 percent disabling prior to February 8, 2016, and rated 70 percent disabling, thereafter. Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran’s symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury have not significantly changed throughout the appeal period and that a uniform rating of 70 percent, but not in excess of 70 percent, is warranted throughout the appeal period. The Veteran’s paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury is rated under the hyphenated diagnostic code 8045-9201. Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rating under one diagnostic code requires use of an additional diagnostic code to identify the basis for the assigned rating; the additional code is shown after the hyphen. Here, the residuals of traumatic brain injury (TBI) (DC 8045) are rated under the criteria for schizophrenia (DC 9201). The rating assigned for TBI is determined based on evaluation of the level of impairment in various facets of impairment, with a single overall rating assigned based on the level of the highest facet. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8045, Evaluation of Cognitive Impairment and Subjective Symptoms. Notably, when symptoms evaluated under DC 8045 overlap with symptoms of another, comorbid disability, a single evaluation under whichever set of diagnostic criteria allows the better assessment of overall impaired functioning due to both conditions is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8045. Further, DC 8045 states to “evaluate emotional/behavioral dysfunction under § 4.130 (Schedule of ratings-mental disorders) when there is a diagnosis of a mental disorder. DC 9201 utilizes the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders (General Rating Formula) to assign ratings ranging between 0 and 100 percent. Under the General Rating Formula, a 30 percent evaluation contemplates 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, mild memory loss, (such as forgetting names, directions, and recent events). 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9201. A 50 percent rating is assigned for 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 is assigned when a psychiatric disorder causes 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); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A 100 percent disability rating is assigned 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, or for the veteran’s own occupation or name. Id. In November 2012, the Veteran was seen for a psychological evaluation through the Sioux Falls VA Health Care System (HCS). The Veteran indicated that he had been granted Social Security Disability benefits in the 1990’s for schizophrenia. The Veteran reported symptoms that included periods of depression and anxiety, issues with memory and word-finding, ruminative/obsessive thoughts, intrusive thoughts, headaches, excessive appetite, and “lacking social graces.” The clinician stated that the Veteran indicated that he had limited interpersonal relationships, poor self-control in respect to adjusting speech and behaviors to align with socially accepted standards. The clinician reported that the Veteran was currently living alone, but stated that he had a girlfriend of over one year who spends part of her time in Florida. The Veteran was noted to have a prior history of divorce with two adult children with who he has limited contacts. He also reported an eight-year-old son with special needs. He stated that he was not married to this child’s mother and that she has not allowed any contact. The clinician noted regarding behavioral observations that comments made by the Veteran were consistent with someone with inefficient social/behavioral controls, though none were at the level were the testing process was disrupted. In January 2013, the Veteran submitted a letter provided by a friend, G.S., describing his condition. The friend stated that she had known the Veteran for many years but in the past few years his condition had worsened. She stated that his outbursts were becoming more often and unprovoked. She stated that he does not appear able to control what he says, which is generally highly inappropriate. She stated that he will state anything that comes to mind and while driving he is constantly “shooting the bird” and swearing at drivers who have literally done nothing wrong. She also reported a change in his sleep habits. She stated she lives far from the Veteran, so most of their communication is done via text message. She stated that he will text all night, sometimes writing about things she does not understand. She would guess he regularly sleeps approximately 4 hours per night between about six and ten a.m. She stated that she arranged for a place for him to live, but that his ability to maintain the home is minimal. She indicates that he demonstrates lack of concentration or focus. She stated he may be sweeping, then he may begin putting a puzzle together before finishing the job. At other times, she thinks he forgets what he is doing while he is talking to her. In July 2014, the Veteran underwent an evaluation for his TBI. The examiner noted that the Veteran indicates that the TBI affected his personality. The Veteran reported being someone who regularly will make inappropriate statements. The Veteran provided an example of visiting a convenience store in clean, white overalls, when a farmer walked in. The Veteran stated that he was deliberately rude to the farmer because he thought the farmer might feel himself superior to the Veteran, even though the farmer had not interacted with him at all prior to the Veteran being rude to him. The Veteran said he was being deliberately provocative and flippant. He could not recall that the farmer even responded, but he now wonders if that farmer is the one who got him turned down for a job at that convenience store. The veteran gives this as an example of why he cannot work; he cannot even pass an interview. He has had some jobs but always was fired or was invited to quit or be fired. The examiner stated that based on the observed behaviors in the interview and testing, he is likely to have significant functional deficits, though they are related to the mental health symptoms, rather than any cognitive deficits. In September 2018, the Veteran was seen for another VA examination. With regard to social history the Veteran reported that he had been married and divorced once, and that he had three children ages 32, 30, and 14. He indicated some legal issues in his past. He stated that “I’ve been accused of things” such as simple assault while married, but no felonies. He reported that he’s had 2 DUI’s and occasional speeding tickets. The examiner noted current symptoms that included: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks more than once per week, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, suicidal ideation, impaired impulse control, and persistent delusions or hallucinations. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s condition caused occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking or mood. Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran’s condition has not significantly changed throughout the appeal period and that a 70 percent rating is warranted throughout the appeal period. Significantly, the Board notes that the Veteran’s functional limitations and symptoms due to his paranoid schizophrenia do not change significantly between the June 2014 VA examination and his examination in September 2018. The Board notes that the 2014 examiner opined that based upon observed behaviors in the interview and testing that the Veteran was likely to have significant functional deficits that he attributed to the Veteran’s paranoid schizophrenia. It was noted that the Veteran was unable to work or hold jobs that he had for any significant period of time. The examiner indicated that this was likely related to the Veteran’s willingness make inappropriate statements or engage in rude behavior. The Board also finds probative the opinion of the September 2018 VA examiner that the Veteran’s symptoms such as suspiciousness, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, impaired impulse control, and persistent delusions or hallucinations would cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking or mood. The Board finds that the Veteran’s symptoms described by the 2012 clinician, the 2014 examiner, and the 2018 examiner are indicative of occupational and social impairment in most areas, which would warrant a 70 percent rating under the rating schedule. Accordingly, the Board finds that a 70 percent rating is more nearly approximated throughout the appeal period. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, DC 9201. The Board, however, finds that a rating in excess of 70 percent is not warranted throughout the appeal period. The evidence of record does not support a finding that the Veteran’s impairment due to his paranoid schizophrenia more nearly approximated total occupational and social impairment, and a 100 percent rating must be denied. While the evidence indicates that the Veteran has not worked since prior to the appeal period, the Veteran has demonstrated some degree of social functioning throughout the appeal period. The Board notes that during the appeal period the Veteran has reported having a girlfriend and has reported limited contact with his adult children. The Board notes that the Veteran’s VA treatment records from the Sioux Falls HCS indicate that the Veteran tried to assist a friend with car trouble in 2016 and visited a friend in Florida in 2017. While the Veteran lives alone and does not report many friends, the evidence does not indicate that he is completely socially isolated. Further, while the Veteran has a history of delusions, the evidence does not indicate that he is a persistent danger to himself or others, that he demonstrates a persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene, memory loss for names of close relatives or his own name, or recurrent disorientation to time or place. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran’s symptoms, and resulting functional impairment, during the appeal period do not result in the required level of impairment occupational and social impairment to be more closely described by the 100 percent criteria. Accordingly, the Board finds that to the extent that the Veteran has argued that a 100 percent rating is warranted for paranoid schizophrenia with traumatic brain injury that the preponderance of the evidence is against this claim, and it must be denied. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, DC 8045-9201. Duties to Notify and Assist The VCAA, codified in part at 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, and implemented in part at 38 C.F.R. § 3.159, amended VA’s duties to notify and to assist a claimant in developing information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. The Veteran, nor his representative, has not raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board...to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); see also Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P.M. Johnson, 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.