Citation Nr: 21000851 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 16-50 379 DATE: January 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1970 to February 1972. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a July 2019 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s TDIU claim. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) the parties agreed that the Board erred in denying the Veteran’s TDIU claim as the issue was inextricably intertwined with his increased rating claim for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In a June 2020 order, the Court granted the parties’ JMR vacating the Board’s decision and remanding the claim to the Board for further adjudication. This matter was last before the Board in November 2020, when it was remanded for additional development. 1. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The evidence indicates there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. VA treatment records from August 24, 2018 and August 28, 2018 indicate that the Veteran was to return for a follow up psychotherapy appointment on September 6, 2018 and a primary care appointment in August 2019. VA treatment records subsequent to August 28, 2018 have not been associated with the claims file. A remand to obtain the outstanding records is required. See Jones v. Wilkie, 918 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (stating the duty to assist is not discharged "based on a mere belief that the likelihood of finding a record substantiating a veteran's claim is 'low' or 'extremely low'"). On his VA Form 21-8940, the Veteran reported that he had tried obtaining employment since becoming too disabled to work. Nevertheless, he did not provide details regarding his employment attempts. Additionally, on his VA Form 21-8940 and corresponding statement, the Veteran reported that he gave up his self-employment because of his PTSD. In an April 25, 2018 letter, the RO requested that he provide information regarding the type of self-employment work performed, number of hours worked per week, amount of time lost due to his service-connected disabilities, and net and gross earning information for the last 12 months of his self-employment. To date, the Veteran has not responded. As the Board must remand the claim for additional development, he should be provided another opportunity to submit the requested information. The Veteran is advised that the failure to provide the above requested information could negatively affect his claim. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (“The duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence.”). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his claimed disabilities. After securing any necessary releases, should request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records dated since August 28, 2018. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. Ask the Veteran to fully complete a VA Form 21-8940, Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, to include detailing all job applications subsequent to December 2012. Also, ask him to provide financial information, such as income tax return forms that include his net and gross profits, for all periods of self-employment. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Anderson 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.