Citation Nr: 20021848 Decision Date: 03/27/20 Archive Date: 03/27/20 DOCKET NO. 08-08 049 DATE: March 27, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 21, 2011, for the grant of total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied. FINDING OF FACT For the period prior to December 21, 2011, the Veteran did not meet the schedular criteria for TDIU, and the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities rendered him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis have not been met prior to December 21, 2011. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.15, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1976 to April 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from July 2007 and September 2012 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared and testified at a videoconference hearing in May 2009 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. This appeal was previously before the Board in September 2009, where it was deferred. The claim returned to the Board in November 2011, where it was remanded for issuance of a statement of the case. Then, in December 2013, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for additional development. In September 2012, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for TDIU with an effective date of December 21, 2011. In May 2013, the Veteran disputed the effective date of the grant of TDIU. The claim returned to the Board in June 2016, where it was remanded for referral to the Director, Compensation Service for consideration of TDIU on an extraschedular basis. A response was received from the Director, Compensation Service, in June 2018. In August 2018, the Board, in part, denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 21, 2011, for the grant of a TDIU. The Veteran subsequently appealed the August 2018 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2019 Order, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacating the Board’s August 2018 decision as it pertained to the denial of the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 21, 2011, for the grant of a TDIU and remanded the appeal to the Board for readjudication consistent with the JMR. Laws and Regulations The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an effective date earlier than December 21, 2011, for his award of TDIU. In statements, he contended that he became unemployable in April 2006 as a result of his service-connected disabilities, notwithstanding his schedular ratings. It is the established policy of VA that all veterans who are unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. A finding of total disability is appropriate when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340 (a)(1), 4.15. “Substantially gainful” employment is employment that is “ordinarily followed by the nondisabled to earn their livelihood with earnings common to the particular occupation in the community where the veteran resides.” See Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356, 358 (1991) (adding that the definition of substantially gainful employment suggests a living wage). Marginal employment is not considered substantially gainful employment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a); see also Moore, 1 Vet. App. at 358 (“The ability to work only a few hours a day or only sporadically is not the ability to engage in substantially gainful employment.”). A TDIU may be assigned if the schedular rating is less than total when it is found that the veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities. See §§ 38 C.F.R. § 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). If there is only one such service-connected disability, it must be ratable at 60 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). If there are two or more such disabilities, at least one disability must be rated at 40 percent or more, and there must be sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. Id. If a veteran does not meet the applicable percentage standards set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a), the issue of entitlement to a TDIU may be submitted to the Director of Compensation Service, for extraschedular consideration of whether the veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b); Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 225 (1993). The Board does not have the authority to assign an extraschedular TDIU rating in the first instance. Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (2001). A TDIU claim presupposes that the rating for the service-connected condition is less than 100 percent, and only asks for TDIU because of subjective factors that the objective rating does not consider. See Vettese v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 31, 34-35 (1994). Thus, in evaluating a veteran’s employability, consideration should be given to the veteran’s level of education, special training, previous work experience, and all other factors that have a bearing on the issue, but not to his age or to impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341 (a), 4.16(b), 4.18, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). The ultimate question of whether a veteran is capable of substantial gainful employment is not a medical one; rather, that determination is for the adjudicator. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a); see also Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The medical evidence addressing the functional effects of a veteran’s disability on his ability to perform the mental and/or physical acts required for substantially gainful employment is relevant to the unemployability determination. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.10; Floore v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 376, 381 (2013). The statutory and regulatory guidelines for determining the effective date of an award of disability compensation are set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefore. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a). In cases involving a claim for higher compensation, the effective date will be the earliest date as of which it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability occurred, if the claim is received within one year from that date; otherwise, the effective date is the date the claim is received. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(2). A TDIU claim is a claim for increased compensation, and the effective date rules for increased compensation apply to a TDIU claim. Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449 (2000). “Claim” is defined broadly to include a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (p); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-35 (1998). Factual Background and Analysis In this case, the Veteran first met the schedular requirements for TDIU on December 21, 2011, which is the effective date of his award for TDIU. Prior to December 21, 2011, the Veteran was service-connected for dysthymic disorder, rated as 30 percent disabling; hypertensive heart disease, rated as 30 percent disabling; headaches, rated as 10 percent disabling; and malignant hypertension, rated as 10 percent disabling. His combined rating prior to December 21, 2011, was 60 percent. In considering the individual evaluation of each disability and the total combined evaluation prior to December 21, 2011, the Board points that the statutory criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a) were not met prior to December 21, 2011. As such, consideration on an extraschedular basis is the Veteran’s only mean to prevail on this claim. In June 2016, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for referral to the Director, Compensation Service for consideration of TDIU on an extraschedular basis. In June 2018, the Director of Compensation Service denied TDIU on an extraschedular basis. Upon the claim’s return to the Board and upon a careful review of the record, the Board finds that the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for an earlier effective date for his award of TDIU. In September 2006, Dr. S. C. V. recommended that the Veteran was permanently disabled due to diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, degenerative disc disease, chronic headache, depressive disorder, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia. The Board is cognizant that Dr. Vora did not opine as to whether the Veteran is unemployable based upon just his service-connected disabilities and affords the opinion little probative weight. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.19 (nonservice-connected disabilities may not be considered). A January 2008 independent medical examination report by Dr. M. E. M. opined that the Veteran was unemployable based upon primarily CTS and diabetic neuropathy. Specifically, Dr. M. E. M. determined that the Veteran “does not appear to be able to work safely due to impaired function in his hands from diabetic neuropathy and carpal tunnel syndrome.” While Dr. M. E. M.’s ultimately determined that “[d]ue to combination of deficits, [the Veteran] does not appear able to work a 40 hour week,” the Board notes that earlier in the opinion Dr. M. E. M. attributed the Veteran’s unemployability to nonservice connected disabilities. As with Dr. S. C. V.’s opinion above, Dr. M. E. M.’s consideration of nonservice-connected disabilities diminishes the opinion’s probative value. As such, the Board gives the opinion little weight. The Veteran was granted a fully favorable decision by the Social Security Administration (SSA) in May 2008, where the Veteran’s carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, arthritis, and spondylosis were found as impairments leading to the Veteran’s disability. The Board finds that it is significant that the Veteran was awarded SSA disability benefits due to a nonservice-connected impairments. While SSA determinations as to employability are not binding on VA as SSA subscribes to different statutory and regulatory criteria, such evidence is nonetheless relevant as there is no evidence the Veteran stopped working due to his service-connected disabilities. See Anderson v. Brown, 5 Vet. Ap. 347, 354 (1993) (quoting Collier v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 413, 417 (1991)). Thus, the Board gives little probative weight to the SSA determination of disability as it does not lend any support to the notion that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities caused his unemployment prior to December 2011. In an October 2008 VA Form 21-4192, the Veteran’s Human Resources (HR) Manager from his last prior employment noted that the Veteran’s termination as an account representative at Car-Mart resulted from the Veteran’s failure to show for work. Additionally, the HR Manager indicated that the Veteran last worked in April 2006. The Veteran completed a February 2009 Rehabilitation Needs Inventory where he described his work history as an account representative at Car-Mart from November 2004 to May 2006. He described this position was one where he took payments, repossessed automobiles, collected upon accounts, and helped customers with payment options. The Veteran reported that he left the job because he “became disabled.” He also reported prior work as a sales consultant at Chevrolet and reported that he left the sales position due to a disagreement. Additionally, the Veteran reported prior employment as a shipping clerk. The record contains a February 2009 counseling report from counseling psychologist, B. M. B. In the report, B. M. B. noted the Veteran’s work history, pointing that the Veteran had a varied work career. The Veteran’s receipt of a four-year college degree was also noted. Importantly, the report noted the Veteran’s completion of a vocational rehabilitation application, and emphasized the Veteran’s request that no further action be taken until the compensation board hears and adjudicates his case. To the point, the Veteran requested that the vocational rehabilitation determination be delayed so that he could “wait for his paperwork to come through so he doesn’t have to work.” Additionally, the Veteran reported that he did not like the job of repossession, working for Car-Mart, and left it. B. M. B. completed an employment handicap determination, finding that he “has the ability, aptitudes, and interests and job knowledge to obtain, retain, and maintain employment.” Moreover, B. M. B. determined that the Veteran has the “training, skills, and work experience to qualify for employment in a suitable occupation in the communications field. He does not have an employment handicap.” In making the determination, B. M. B. noted tests that were used to assess the Veteran’s interests, aptitudes, and abilities including the Wonderlic Personnel Survey, CISS, and 16PF. The Board places significant weight on B. M. B.’s employability determination as the Veteran was administered objective tests and B. M. B. further evaluated the Veteran’s education, experience, interests, aptitudes, and abilities in making such a determination. At the May 2009 hearing, the Veteran reported he last worked in 2006, at which time he was employed at Car-Mart as an account representative and repossession person. He worked at Car-Mart for about a year. Prior to that, he reported working in automotive car sales for five to six years. He reported that he stopped working because he had surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome and his neurologist, Dr. S. B. stated that he could not work. The Board recognizes the Veteran’s varied employment history in varying industries, namely in sales and as an account representative, and finds the vocational diversification of considerable importance in determining the Veteran was able to sustain gainful employment prior to December 2011. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341 (a), 4.16(b), 4.18, 4.19; Van Hoose, 4 Vet. App. at 363. In a similar regard, as discussed in B. M. B.’s counseling report above, the Veteran completed a college degree, lending further support to the Board’s determination that the Veteran was not unable to sustain gainful employment prior to December 21, 2011. Through the period at issue, the Veteran was afforded several VA examinations. For instance, at a January 2010 VA examination for mental impairments, the examiner opined that the Veteran did not have significant mental problems interfering with his occupational adjustment. Although the Veteran was noted to have taken some days off work due to anger issues in the past, the examiner ultimately found the Veteran fit to work with respect to his mental status. The examiner relied upon an in-person clinical interview, the administration of objective testing, and a review of the Veteran’s claims file in making this determination. Moreover, a December 2011 VA examiner specifically provided the Veteran’s limitations with respect to his mental disability. With respect to understanding and memory, the examiner determined that the Veteran could understand, retain, and follow simple instructions involving at least two steps. In terms of sustained concentration and persistence, the examiner provided that the Veteran could sustain attention and work at a reasonable pace for up to two-hour blocks of time, when performing simple and routine work-related tasks. The Veteran would not require an inordinate level of supervision when performing simple and routine tasks, the examiner added. As to social interactions, the examiner determined that the Veteran was expected to have difficulty interacting with the general public and would be expected to resist authority. VA examinations were also rendered for the Veteran’s physical service-connected disabilities, including headaches, hypertension, and heart conditions. The VA examiner determined that the conditions would not impact the Veteran’s ability to work. The 2011 VA examination determinations regarding the Veteran’s employability were based upon a review of the claims file and an in-person examination of the Veteran. The Board finds that the VA examiners’ opinions are probative, because they are based on an accurate medical history and provide explanations that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). A Vocational Assessment completed by Vocational Expert (VE) D. P. was completed in November 2013. VE D. P. reviewed the Veteran’s claims file and conducted a telephonic interview with the Veteran in assessing that the Veteran’s service-connected impairments rendered him unable to sustain employment. VE D. P. specifically noted that a review of the Veteran’s claims file along with the Veteran’s subjective self-reports of worsening demonstrated a consistent and steady worsening of symptoms related to his service-connected impairments. VE Palmer related this opinion as to employability back to February 2006. The Board takes issue with VE D. P. vocational assessment as it was based primarily upon subjective self-reports and a retroactive application of the Veteran’s employability status. Notably, VE D. P. specifically indicated that the Veteran reported to him that had stopped working in 2006 because his service-connected anxiety and depression made working difficult and his combined medical issues became so severe that he finally made the decision to stop working all together. However, as noted above, in a February 2009 report, a counseling psychologist noted that the Veteran reported that he did not like the job of repossession while working for Car-Mart, and as a result left this job in 2006. The counseling psychologist also noted that the Veteran requested that his vocational rehabilitation determination be delayed so that he could “wait for his paperwork to come through so he doesn’t have to work.” As a result, the psychologist determined that the Veteran “has the ability, aptitudes, and interests and job knowledge to obtain, retain, and maintain employment” and that the Veteran has the “training, skills, and work experience to qualify for employment in a suitable occupation in the communications field” as he did not have an employment handicap. While VE D.P. noted that the Veteran reported to him that he had stopped working in 2006 because his service-connected anxiety and depression made working difficult, the Board again notes that on a January 2010 VA examination for mental impairments, the examiner opined that the Veteran did not have significant mental problems interfering with his occupational adjustment. The January 2010 examiner relied upon an in-person clinical interview, the administration of objective testing, and a review of the Veteran’s claims file in making the determination that the Veteran was fit to work with respect to his mental status. Moreover, a December 2011 VA examiner specifically provided the Veteran’s limitations with respect to his mental disability and determined that the Veteran could understand, retain, and follow simple instructions involving at least two steps and would not require an inordinate level of supervision when performing simple and routine tasks, the examiner added. Additionally, as noted above, in an October 2008 VA Form 21-4192, the Veteran’s HR Manager from his last prior employment noted that the Veteran’s termination as an account representative at Car-Mart resulted from the Veteran’s failure to show for work. As a result, the Board finds that VE D. P.’s opinion relies upon noncredible self-reports from the Veteran and its rationale is further contradicted by the most probative competent medical evidence regarding the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities during the pertinent period. Accordingly, the Board finds that VE D. P.’s opinion as to the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities and his unemployability is based on an inaccurate factual premise and is not probative. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). The Board also notes that VE D. P. pointed to the Veteran’s worsening of impairments through a steady worsening of symptoms, indicating that an increase in the severity of impairments caused the Veteran’s employability. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities increased in severity over time, thereby warranting increases in evaluations that led to the ultimate grant of a schedular TDIU. However, VE D. P.’s assessment did not adequately support the determination that the Veteran’s service-connected impairments rendered the Veteran unemployable as far back as 7 years prior to the date of VE D. P.’s assessment. Notably, in making his determination that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities rendered him unemployable as since at least as far back as February 2006, VE D.P. specifically noted that this functional status was supported by a December 2007 VA examination where the examiner noted that the Veteran had not worked for 1 ½ years as the Veteran reported that he was not working due to health issues while he also demonstrated very poor social skills. However, the Board notes that this reliance on the December 2007 VA examination findings is ambiguous based upon the other findings of the examination which VE D.P. did not address. Notably, while the December 2007 VA examiner found that the Veteran reported that he was not working because of his health issues, the examiner also specifically indicated that the Veteran could give no clear cut example as to any functional difficulties because of mental problems and that the Veteran was able to engage in a normal range in a variety of activities of daily living without interruption in his typical daily routine. Simply, the worsening of the Veteran’s service-connected disability through time supports a finding of unemployability more recently, but it does not support a finding of unemployability before the steady worsening of symptoms. Because VE D. P.’s assessment is not supported by sound rationale, is ambiguous, and relies heavily upon uncorroborated subjective self-reports of the Veteran, the Board gives the assessment little probative weight. The Veteran was provided another VA examination in April 2015. At the examination, the Veteran specifically reported that he has issues with authority figures and performance at work. Additionally, he reported that physical impairments primarily prevented him from working. Incidentally, the Veteran reported that carpal tunnel syndrome, various surgeries, back pain, and medical level for said surgeries inhibited his ability to return to work. The Board reiterates that nonservice-connected disabilities may not be considered in a TDIU determination. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.19. By the Veteran’s own admissions at the April 2015 VA examination, the crux of his unemployability rests with impairments including carpal tunnel syndrome and back pain, both of which are not service-connected. An additional Employability Evaluation was provided by VE E. R. H. in July 2016. VE E. R. H. interviewed the Veteran telephonically. VE E. R. H. noted the Veteran’s education and diversified work history. She noted that the Veteran received a bachelor’s degree from college. Additionally, she noted the Veteran’s past jobs as a car salesman, substitute teacher, insurance agent, sales representative, and account representative. VE E. R. H. opined that it is at least as likely as not that Veteran is precluded from performing any type of sustained, competitive employment, even at an unskilled sedentary level. VE Hutchinson rendered this opinion by assessing only the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. VE E. R. H. determined that the Veteran would “miss an unacceptable amount of work” due to chronic headaches, supporting her finding that the Veteran was unemployable, and related this opinion back to 2006, when the Veteran first reported an inability to work. The Board acknowledges VE E. R. H.’s opinion, but ultimately affords it less probative value than the other evidence of record regarding the Veteran’s employability. The Board notes that when determining that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran was precluded from performing any type of sustained, competitive employment, even at an unskilled sedentary level, VE E. R. H relied on the December 2007 VA psychiatric examination which noted that the Veteran was anxious and depressed, socially inadequate and indecisive. VE E. R. H also found that the symptoms of his dysthymic disorder including anxiety, disinterest, loss of interest and difficulty sleeping combined with his frequent headaches would cause his concentration to be significantly impaired which caused him to be unable to complete work tasks in a timely and acceptable manner. However, as noted above, while the December 2007 VA examiner found that the Veteran reported that he was not working because of his health issues, the examiner also specifically indicated that the Veteran could give no clear cut example as to any functional difficulties because of mental problems and that the Veteran was able to engage in a normal range in a variety of activities of daily living without interruption in his typical daily routine. While E. R. H. noted that the Veteran’s psychiatric symptoms along with his headaches would cause the Veteran’s concentration to be significantly impaired causing him to miss work in a timely and acceptable manner, the Board again notes that on a January 2010 VA examination for mental impairments, the examiner opined that the Veteran did not have significant mental problems interfering with his occupational adjustment. The January 2010 examiner again relied upon an in-person clinical interview, the administration of objective testing, and a review of the Veteran’s claims file in making the determination that the Veteran was fit to work with respect to his mental status. Moreover, a December 2011 VA examiner again specifically provided the Veteran’s limitations with respect to his mental disability and determined that the Veteran could understand, retain, and follow simple instructions involving at least two steps and would not require an inordinate level of supervision when performing simple and routine tasks. The Board also finds that the December 2011 VA examination regarding the Veteran’s headaches was rendered several years before VE E. R. H.’s opinion, and in closer temporal proximity to the period at issue. Moreover, the December 2011 VA examination finding that headaches did not impact the Veteran’s ability to work was rendered after an in-person examination of the Veteran. As noted above, the VA examinations of record were based upon in-person examinations and objective clinical findings with consideration of the Veteran’s subjective reports. As a result, the Board finds that they VA examiners’ opinions are probative, because they are based on an accurate medical history and provide explanations that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). As such, the Board finds that the VE E. R. H.’s opinion is of lessened probative value than the findings of the multiple VA examiners. Moreover, while VE E. R. H.’s discussed some of the evidence of record as deemed relevant by the expert, he based much of his opinion on the Veteran’s subjective history, which as noted above, was inconsistent with that of the concurrent medical treatment records. Additionally, VE E. R. notably failed to acknowledge that the VA examinations conducted prior to December 21, 2011 demonstrated that the Veteran’s physical service-connected disabilities, including headaches, hypertension, and heart conditions would not impact the Veteran’s ability to work and also failed to address the determination of B. M. B. that the Veteran did not have an employment handicap as has the “training, skills, and work experience to qualify for employment in a suitable occupation in the communications field.” When considering the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities and their impact on his occupational functioning, the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran was precluded him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation prior to December 21, 2011. Although the Veteran has maintained that his service-connected disabilities prevented him from doing so, this assertion is inconsistent with other, more probative evidence of record. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995). In this regard, the Board finds that the VA examination reports and vocational rehabilitation records offer the strongest and most persuasive evidence regarding the impact of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities on his occupational functioning prior to December 21, 2011. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has not worked since 2006, but notes that the term unemployability is not synonymous with the terms unemployed and unemployable for the purposes of determining entitlement to TDIU. A Veteran may be unemployed or unemployable for a variety of reasons, but a determination as to entitlement to TDIU is appropriate only when a Veteran’s unemployability is the result of a service-connected disability. See M21-MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2(F)(24)(c). When considering each of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, the objective medical evidence of record suggests that his service-connected disabilities, at most, might have prevented him from performing certain types of jobs prior to December 21, 2011. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities precluded him from securing or following any type of employment during this period. The Board considered the Veteran’s occupational and educational history and finds that while the Veteran may not have been able to secure employment in the exact fields he previously worked, the variety of skills obtained from a diverse work history and education level would allow for transition to other employment opportunities. See VE E. R. H.’s July 2016 report (where it was noted that the Veteran received a bachelor’s degree and worked in a variety of employment fields including as a salesman, substitute teacher, insurance agent, and account representative). In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the most probative evidence of record weighs against a finding that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities prevented him from securing or following any substantially gainful employment prior to December 21, 2011. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertion that he was unable to work due to service-connected disabilities prior to December 21, 2011. However, the Veteran’s contention is outweighed by other evidence of record, particularly, the findings of the VA examiners set forth above. See Caluza, 7 Vet. App. at 511. Moreover, the Board recognizes reports from VEs D. P. and E. R. H., but notes that the ultimate question of whether a veteran is capable of substantial gainful employment is a determination for the adjudicator. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a); see also Geib, 733 F.3d at 1354. As set forth above, the VA medical opinions of record and rehabilitation records support the Board’s finding that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities did not prevent him from performing all types of work prior to December 21, 2011. The Board does not doubt that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities had an impact on his employability prior to December 21, 2011. However, the 60 percent schedular evaluation in effect during the relevant period contemplates significant industrial impairment resulting from the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. In reviewing the evidence of record, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine does not apply, and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board James A. DeFrank, 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.