Citation Nr: 21001440 Decision Date: 01/08/21 Archive Date: 01/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-15 185 DATE: January 8, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Marine Corps from February 1970 to February 1974. The instant matter is on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision. In November 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned in a virtual hearing. A transcript of the proceedings has been associated with the record. 1. The claim of entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The Board regrets the additional delay, but supplemental information is needed from the Veteran with regard to his TDIU claim. While the Veteran initially submitted some financial documentation with his October 2013 claim, this information did not specifically address the extent to which he worked during this period or the total salary paid. The Veteran reported owning a business, which he subsequently transferred to his daughter. The record reflects disagreement as to when the business was transferred with the Veteran stating initially that he turned the business over around 2012, but subsequent VA treatment records reflect continued, though potentially less than full-time, employment in 2013 and 2014. The Veteran reported in June 2014 that family had taken over the business, and that the business would be renamed by January 1, 2015, but his daughter submitted a statement indicating that she assumed control of the business around 2016. The Veteran’s daughter also stated that the Veteran worked through 2016 in the business, though details of his hours and salary were not provided. Due to this missing, and sometimes conflicting information, supplemental documentation regarding the Veteran’s employment, or lack thereof, throughout the period on appeal is necessary in order to make a determination with regard to TDIU. The Board also recognizes that the Regional Office has already requested clarification on this issue. In May 2014 and December 2016, the Regional Office requested that the Veteran submit an updated application for TDIU, as well as provide supplemental information with regard to his disabilities and their impact on his employment. The requested information was not received; however, the most recent request did not specifically request clarification with respect to the discrepancies in his employment timeline or additional information regarding his hours or salary after September 2012. Affording maximum possible deference to the Veteran in this case, the Board is affording an additional opportunity for him to provide this requested information prior to adjudication of the issue on the merits. The Veteran is advised that “[t]he duty to assist in the development and adjudication of a claim is not a one-way street.” Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517, 522 (1996). “If a [claimant] wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential who in obtaining the putative evidence.” Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and his representative in order to obtain additional information regarding his employment since September 2012. Provide a reasonable opportunity for response, and the RO should conduct any additional development as indicated. 2. Following completion of the foregoing, the AOJ should review the record and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If it remains denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate supplemental SOC, afford the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Fisher, 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.