Citation Nr: 20028072 Decision Date: 04/22/20 Archive Date: 04/22/20 DOCKET NO. 11-16 887 DATE: April 22, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent prior to April 18, 2016, and in excess of 50 percent from April 18, 2016 to September 22, 2016, for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating (TDIU) based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December 1973 to January 1994, to include service in Southwest Asia. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation and Achievement Medals, and the Southwest Asia Service Medal. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. In its January 2016 decision, the Board, in pertinent part, remanded the issue of an increased rating for PTSD for further development. Again, in November 2017, the Board remanded the issue of an increased rating for PTSD. In September 2018, the Board denied an increased rating for the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD and denied referral for extraschedular consideration for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Subsequently, the Veteran appealed the September 2018 Board decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a September 2019 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the September 2018 Board decision and remanded the matters for readjudication. Specifically, the Court noted that the Veteran informally argued that he was entitled to a higher rating effective before September 22, 2016. The Court also concluded that the Board failed to address favorable evidence in finding that TDIU had not been raised between April 1, 2014, and September 22, 2016. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Veteran generally contends that his service-connected disabilities prevented him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation between April 1, 2014, the date of his retirement from his long time, post-service job, and September 22, 2016, the date his PTSD rating was increased to 100 percent. As noted, in a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determined that the Board failed to address evidence regarding the Veteran’s possible unemployability. Given that decision, the Board determines that additional development is required. First, the Veteran has not submitted a formal application for a TDIU. While not specifically required, such a formal application includes information essential to the proper adjudication of a TDIU claim, to include the Veteran’s work history, the disabilities which he contends led to his unemployability, whether he has any higher education, and whether he has applied for any jobs since he stopped working. To adjudicate this claim without this information could result in a denial or in the decision being based on an inaccurate or incomplete factual picture. Thus, the Board shall remand the Veteran’s claim in order that he be provided with a formal application for a TDIU. Next, if the Veteran submits the requested application, the AOJ should take any necessary steps to develop the claim based on his submission. Finally, the Veteran’s claims for increased ratings for PTSD are inextricably intertwined with his TDIU claim. Accordingly, they must be remanded as well. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran to complete and return a VA Form 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. 2. Request the Veteran and his former employer(s) to complete and return a VA Form 21-4140, Employment Questionnaire. 3. Readjudicate the Veteran’s appeals. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Crawford, 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.