Citation Nr: 20030106 Decision Date: 04/29/20 Archive Date: 04/29/20 DOCKET NO. 15-38 863 DATE: April 29, 2020 ORDER For the entire period on appeal, an increased disability rating in excess of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include cyclothymic disorder and bipolar disorder, is denied. A total disability rating based upon individual employability (TDIU) on a schedular basis due to the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Throughout the entire period on appeal, the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability more nearly approximates occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, and does not more nearly approximate total occupational and social impairment. 2. Throughout the entire period on appeal, the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability has not rendered him unable to secure or to follow a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Throughout the entire period of appeal, the criteria for an evaluation in excess of 70 percent, for an acquired psychiatric disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9432. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.15, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served honorably in the U.S. Army from June 1958 to March 1961. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a October 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) awarding an increased evaluation of 70 percent, effective October 26, 2012. The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a hearing held in December 2018; a transcript of that hearing is of record. In May 2019, the Board remanded this appeal for further development, including the following: (1) scheduling the Veteran for a VA examination to evaluate the current severity of his acquired psychiatric disability; (2) issuing correspondence to the Veteran to request his authorization to obtain additional private treatment records in support of his claims; and (3) issuing correspondence to the Veteran to provide him with Form 21-8490 to further develop his TDIU claim. To the extent that the directed VA examination report was procured in January 2020, and the directed development correspondence was issued to the Veteran in June 2019 and January 2020, the Board finds that substantial compliance with its remand directives pertaining to the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disability claim has been accomplished. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). The Board also notes that pursuant to correspondence dated August 2019 and January 2020, the Veteran has declined to submit the additional development sought by VA or to authorize VA to procure additional treatment records and information in furtherance of his claims. Instead, the Veteran has indicated his preference for the Board to adjudicate his pending claims based upon the evidence currently of record. While VA has a statutory duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining evidence to substantiate his claims, the duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). Therefore, in light of the Veteran’s request, the Board hereby finds it appropriate in this case to adjudicate the Veteran’s pending claims based upon the evidence currently of record. Regarding the applicability of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC), the Veteran does not have a single disability rated at 100 percent with an additional disability rated at 60 percent or more, even when considering TDIU and temporary total ratings. See 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); see also Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 289-90 (2008). In addition, the record does not contain lay or medical evidence indicating that the Veteran is in fact housebound, requires aid and attendance, or that his disabilities result in loss of use of a limb, blindness or deafness. See 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s), (l), (k); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a), (b), (i). Accordingly, the Board will not infer the issue of entitlement to SMC. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). 1. For the entire period on appeal, an increased disability rating in excess of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include cyclothymic disorder and bipolar disorder, is denied. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented to VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) at 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § § 3.321(a), 4.1. In evaluating the severity of a particular disability, it is essential to consider its history. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 592-93 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is the primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). In determining the severity of a disability, the Board is required to consider the potential application of various other VA regulations, regardless of whether they were raised by the Veteran, as well as the entire history of the Veteran’s disability. See 38 C.F.R. § § 4.1, 4.2; see also Schafrath, 1 Vet. App. at 595. Separate evaluations may be assigned for separate periods of time, or staged, where factual findings show distinct time periods during which the Veteran’s disability exhibits symptoms that warrant the application of different ratings. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-28 (1999); see also Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007). However, the evaluation of the same disability under several diagnostic codes, known as pyramiding, must be avoided; separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury only where the symptomatology for one condition is not duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; see also Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994). Once the evidence has been assembled in the record, the Board shall consider all competent lay and medical evidence of record, analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, and provide reasons for rejecting any favorable material evidence. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996); 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). In addressing lay evidence and determining its probative value, the Board must assess both its competency, a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered, and its credibility, a factual determination regarding its probative value. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Board shall afford the claimant the benefit of the doubt, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.3, and where the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant shall prevail. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-54 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must weigh against the claim in order to warrant its denial. See Alemany, 9 Vet. App. at 519-20. The Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability, to include cyclothymic disorder, anxiety, depression, and bipolar I disorder, is currently evaluated under the criteria of Diagnostic Code 9431 as 50 percent disabling from October 27, 2010, and 70 percent disabling from October 26, 2012. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The VA General Rating Schedule for mental disorders provides as follows: A 10 percent rating contemplates occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by continuous medication. See id. A 30 percent rating 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, recent events). See id. A 50 percent rating contemplates 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; impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbance of motivation and mood; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. See id. A 70 percent evaluation contemplates 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; intermittently illogical obscure, or irrelevant speech; 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 worklike setting); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. See id. A 100 percent evaluation contemplates 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. See id. The VA Secretary recently amended the portion of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities dealing with psychiatric disorders and the associated regulations to remove outdated references to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) and replaced them with references to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V). The DSM-V eliminated the DSM-IV’s reliance upon GAF scores, and accordingly, the Board will no longer afford GAF scores any probative value. See Golden v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 221, 224-25 (2018). Evaluation under § 4.130 is symptom-driven; therefore, symptomatology should be the primary focus when assigning a rating to a given mental health disability, and the frequency, severity, and duration of a veteran’s symptoms must play an important role in determining the appropriate disability rating. See Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 116-17 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Significantly, the list of symptoms under the rating criteria is meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive; thus, the Board need not find all or even some of the listed symptoms in order to award a specific disability rating. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442-43 (2002). In fact, it is the level of the veteran’s occupational and social impairment that determines the appropriate disability rating under Section 4.130; accordingly, if the evidence of record demonstrates that the veteran suffers from symptoms listed in the rating criteria or symptoms of a similar severity, frequency, and duration that cause occupational or social impairment equivalent to the criteria for a particular rating, then the corresponding rating shall be assigned. See id. at 443; see also Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 117. In addition to the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the veteran’s capacity for adjustment during periods of remission must also be considered, and the evaluation must rest upon all the evidence relating to occupational and social impairment, not solely the examiner’s assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a). Further, when evaluating the level of disability for a mental disorder, the extent of social impairment must be considered, but the evaluation shall not be assigned solely on the basis of social impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(b). The Veteran contends that the symptoms of his acquired psychiatric disability warrant an evaluation of 100 percent for the period on appeal from October 27, 2010; however, for the reasons set forth below, the Board disagrees and finds that the symptoms of the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability more nearly approximate occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. In January 2020, the Veteran was afforded his most recent VA psychiatric examination, which culminated in a report diagnosing the Veteran with bipolar I disorder and opining that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disability currently results in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The January 2020 VA examiner noted that the Veteran reported continuing his prescriptions of bupropion, lamictal, and trazodone for many years, that the medications have helped him “tremendously,” and that his mood is well-controlled with his medications. The January 2020 VA examination report further noted that the Veteran reported the following psychiatric symptoms: depressed mood; sad feelings that come and go “swiftly;” anxiety; mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions or recent events; and disturbances of motivation and mood. The January 2020 VA examination report further indicates the Veteran’s report of divorcing from his fourth wife of ten years approximately five years ago, and that he has ongoing contact with his two adult sons. The Veteran further reported that he currently resides in a senior facility, he has three good friends in the community, and he enjoys living there. The Veteran further denies any of the following psychiatric symptoms or manifestations: difficulty with sleep; problematic behaviors during manic moods; difficulties with anger; recent paranoia; recent panic attacks; suicidal ideation; homicidal ideation; or recent psychiatric hospitalizations. The January 2020 VA examination report further indicated the examiner’s following observations of the Veteran during the January 2020 VA examination: cooperative; alert and oriented in person, place, time, and situation; dressed casually and appropriately with good hygiene; affect appropriate to the content of speech; logical and organized thought processes; no display of delusional thought content; no demonstration of any evidence of responding to internal stimuli; speech and motor activity within normal limits; and intact memory, attention, and concentration. The January 2020 VA examination report further noted that the Veteran’s current psychiatric symptoms are unlikely to prevent him from maintaining employment with appropriate modifications, such as flexible time limits, and ability to work independently as needed. The Veteran was previously afforded a VA psychiatric examination in September 2013, which culminated in a report diagnosing the Veteran with cyclothymic disorder and opining that the Veteran’s psychiatric disability results in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and/or mood. The September 2013 VA examination report further indicated that the Veteran reported the following psychiatric symptoms: depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; panic attacks more than once a week; chronic sleep impairment; mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions or recent events; impaired judgment; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work-like setting; inability to establish and maintain effective relationships; suicidal ideation; impaired impulse control, such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence; and grossly inappropriate behavior. The Board has carefully reviewed the Veteran’s extensive treatment records and finds that such records from October 2010 generally reflect the symptoms reported in the Veteran’s examinations. The Board notes that the Veteran’s VA treatment records indicate that a single hospitalization for suicidal ideation in April 2013; however, the Veteran has subsequently and consistently, and most recently in January 2020, denied any suicidal or homicidal ideations. Accordingly, because the record contains no other evidence of the Veteran reporting any suicidal ideations or tendencies, and the evidence does not show that at any time during the entire period on appeal the Veteran has posed a persistent threat to himself or others, the Board finds that this singular incident of suicidal ideation occurring more than seven years ago fails to rise to the level of the persistent danger of harm to self or others contemplated by Section 4.130 for a total disability rating. VA treatment records further indicate that the Veteran consistently presents as alert and oriented as to time, place, person, and situation, that his mood is congruent, that his speech is normal in pitch, rate, volume, and prosody, that his thought processes are generally clear and logical, and that his insight and judgment are adequate. No overt evidence of psychotic or manic symptoms have been documented, and VA treatment records are silent for any evidence of gross impairment of thought, intermittent ability to perform activities of daily living, disorientation to time and place, or memory loss of close relatives, his own occupation, or his own name. The record further indicates that the Veteran has not demonstrated any signs or symptoms of suicidal ideations or behaviors that would suggest the need for intervention or further evaluation. It was further noted that the Veteran possessed the full capacity to make informed medical decisions, was regarded as a reliable source of information, and that, from a psychiatric standpoint, appeared stable and suitable for outpatient treatment. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing lay and medical evidence, the Board finds that at no time during the pendency of this claim have the criteria for a 100 percent psychiatric disability rating been satisfied or approximated. The Veteran’s examination and treatment records consistently reflect the absence of any reports or observations of persistent homicidal or suicidal ideations, persistent hallucinations or delusions, or disorientation to time or place. Nor does the record contain any evidence that the Veteran has exhibited gross impairment in thought processes or communication; in fact, the Veteran has consistently been found to be appropriately groomed and behaved and to possess the ability to perform activities of daily living, including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene. Further, no lay or medical evidence suggests that the Veteran has a memory impairment of such severity that he cannot remember highly learned material such as his own name or the names of close relatives. While the January 2020 VA examination report noted that the Veteran’s suffers from mild memory loss, such memory lapses do not rise to the level of failing to remember the sort of highly learned information contemplated by the criteria for the 100 percent disability rating. Moreover, the evidence of record reflects that the Veteran’s social relationships do not suffer from total impairment. The Veteran reported to the January 2020 VA examiner that he has maintained social relationships with his sons, as well as with three friends in his senior living community that he describes as close. Although the record indicates that the Veteran has been divorced or separated from four spouses, he continues to maintain social relationships with other friends and family members. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence of record falls short of establishing total social impairment as contemplated by Section 4.130 for a total disability rating. See Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 117-118. The Veteran contends that he has been unable to maintain employment since retiring from his longtime employer in 2005; however, the January 2020 VA examination report indicates that the Veteran’s occupational impairment does not rise to the level of total or complete. Moreover, even if psychiatric-related total occupational impairment were established in this case, the Board finds that, based upon the foregoing evidence of record, the severity of the Veteran’s psychiatric symptomatology does not more nearly approximate the level of disability contemplated by a 100 percent rating, because the evidence does not support a finding of total social impairment. As set forth above, a total disability rating under Section 4.130 requires an ultimate factual conclusion that the level of the Veteran’s psychiatric symptomatology results in both total occupational and total social impairment, see Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118, and the evidence of record in this case indicates that although the Veteran has experienced multiple divorces and separations, the totality of the evidence of record does not support a finding that the Veteran’s relationships with his adult children and his close friends are totally impaired as contemplated by a total disability rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran’s psychiatric symptomatology more nearly approximates the rating criteria contemplated by the 70 percent evaluation rather than the 100 percent evaluation, and a rating of 100 percent is not warranted at any point during the period on appeal. Instead, a continued evaluation of 70 percent, and no higher, during the entire period on appeal is warranted in this case, due to the frequency, severity, and duration of the Veteran’s symptomatology resulting in social and occupational impairment in most areas, particularly in family relations, work and mood. See id. All potentially applicable diagnostic codes have been considered, and there is no basis to assign an evaluation in excess of the rating assigned herein for the Veteran’s disability. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991). In addition, the Board is not required to address additional issues unless specifically raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017). In this case, because neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issue concerning the Veteran’s psychiatric disability, and no other issues have been reasonably raised by the record, the Board finds that, for the entire period on appeal, a preponderance of the evidence of record weighs against an award of an evaluation in excess of 70 percent for the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007). 2. A total disability rating based upon individual employability (TDIU) on a schedular basis due to the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability is denied. As stated above, the Board recognizes that where a veteran seeking an increased disability rating submits evidence of unemployability, the veteran’s entitlement to a TDIU must be considered as an element of the underlying increased rating claim. See Rice, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453 (2009); see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. In this case, the evidence of record indicates that the Veteran is currently unemployed, as he retired from his job as a teacher in 2005. Accordingly, in its May 2019 remand, the Board directed further development of the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, to include issuing correspondence to the Veteran to provide him with Form 21-8490 to further develop his implied TDIU claim. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). As stated above, the directed development correspondence was issued to the Veteran in June 2019 and January 2020; however, pursuant to correspondence dated August 2019 and January 2020, the Veteran has declined to submit the additional development sought by VA or to authorize VA to procure additional treatment records and information in furtherance of his claims. Instead, the Veteran has indicated his preference for the Board to adjudicate his pending claims based upon the evidence currently in the record. While VA has a statutory duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining evidence to substantiate his claims, the duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood, 1 Vet. App. at 193. Therefore, the Board hereby finds it appropriate to adjudicate the Veteran’s pending claims based upon the evidence currently of record. Where a veteran’s schedular rating has been evaluated at less than 100 percent, total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or to follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of one or more service-connected disabilities and without regard to advancing age or any nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341(a), 4.16(a). Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), a determination concerning unemployability must be made on the basis of service-connected disabilities alone; nonservice-connected disabilities must be disregarded. See Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Even if the record contains evidence that a veteran’s unemployability is a result of other nonservice-connected factors such as age or nonservice-connected conditions, a finding must still be made, without regard to the nonservice-connected conditions, as to whether the veteran’s service-connected disabilities are sufficiently incapacitating as to render him unemployable. See id. The veteran’s service-connected disabilities, employment history, educational and vocational attainment, and all other factors having a bearing on the issue must be considered. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Total disability will be considered to exist when there is any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to secure or to follow a substantially gainful occupation. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.15. While the rating is based primarily upon the average impairment of earning capacity, full consideration must be given to unusual physical or mental effects in individual cases, to peculiar effects of occupational activities, to defects in physical or mental endowment preventing the usual amount of success in overcoming the handicap of disability, and to the effect of combinations of disability. See id. Substantially gainful employment is defined as work which is more than marginal and which permits the individual to earn a living wage. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a); see also Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356, 358-59 (1991). The ability to work only a few hours a day or only sporadically does not qualify as an ability to engage in substantially gainful employment. See id. Marginal employment shall generally be deemed to exist when a veteran’s earned income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Marginal employment may also be established, on a facts found basis, when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold, including but not limited to employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop. See id. Consideration must be given in all claims to the nature of the employment and the reason for termination. See id. Certain percentage requirements must be satisfied in order to qualify for schedular consideration of entitlement to TDIU. Specifically, if unemployability is the result of only one service-connected disability, this disability must be ratable at 60 percent or more. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). If it is the result of two or more service-connected disabilities, at least one must be ratable at 40 percent or more, with the other disabilities sufficient to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. See id. The existence or degree of nonservice-connected disabilities or previous unemployability status will be disregarded where the percentages referred to in this paragraph for the service-connected disability or disabilities are met and in the judgment of the rating agency such service-connected disabilities render the veteran unemployable. See id. Unemployability in this context involves the incapacity to perform the physical and mental acts required by employment, without regard to whether the Veteran can find employment generally. See Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). Consideration may be given to the Veteran’s education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his age or to the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See id.; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. However, after careful review, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability precluded him from performing the physical and mental acts required to secure or to follow substantially gainful employment, when considering his education, special training, and employment history; therefore, the Board finds that a TDIU on a schedular basis, is not warranted in this case. See Van Hoose, 4 Vet. App. at 363. As stated above, the January 2020 VA psychiatric examination report indicated that the Veteran’s relatively mild psychiatric symptoms and generally normal functioning were unlikely to unlikely to prevent him from maintaining employment with appropriate modifications, such as flexible time limits, and ability to work independently as needed. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and in light of the Veteran’s declination to submit additional evidence in support of his TDIU claim, the Board concludes that a preponderance of the evidence of record weighs against a finding that the Veteran’s service-connected acquired psychiatric disability renders him unable to secure or to follow substantially gainful employment. In reaching this conclusion, the benefit of the doubt has been considered; however, because a preponderance of the evidence of record weighs against the Veteran’s claim, the Veteran’s claim for TDIU on a schedular basis must be denied. See Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Marsdale 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.