Citation Nr: 21002040 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 13-28 747A DATE: January 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1967 to June 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in August 2020 when the Board decided the Veteran’s claims for entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease, cervical spine, service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy, increased rating for advanced lumbar degenerative disc disease, temporary total rating, earlier effective dates for radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities, and increased ratings for bilateral lower extremities. The Board found the issue of entitlement to a TDIU had been raised by the record pursuant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453 (2009). The matter was remanded for further development and has returned to the Board for further appellate action. 1. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. In its August 2020 remand, the Board found the issue of entitlement to a TDIU had been raised by the record as the Veteran’s attorney expressly stated in the January 2019 Notice of Disagreement that the service-connected disabilities were so serious as to render the Veteran unemployable. In reviewing the TDIU claim, the Board noted it had granted service connection for degenerative disc disease, cervical spine and right upper extremity radiculopathy, however noted that a disability rating had not yet been assigned. The Board further noted the Veteran had not submitted a VA Form 21-8940, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and therefore found that it did not have enough information to adjudicate the claim. The Board remanded the matter in August 2020, instructing the AOJ to develop and adjudicate the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, to include asking the Veteran to complete VA Form 21-8940, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and requests for verification from the Veteran’s prior employers. During the pendency of this appeal, it appears the Veteran changed addresses. Pursuant to the Board’s remand instructions, VA sent the Veteran a VA Form 21-8940, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and a VA Form 21-4192 Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefit on August 21, 2020. The Board notes this was sent to the Veteran’s previous address. On October 16, 2020 the RO sent a Supplemental Statement of the Case to the Veteran’s new address, noting that in compliance with the Board’s remand, a VA Form 21-8940 and Form 21-4192 was sent to the Veteran, however at the time of the SSOC, the requested information had not been received. The Board notes the Veteran’s attorney sent VA notice of the Veteran’s change of address on November 19, 2020. The Board emphasizes it is incumbent upon the Veteran to keep VA apprised of his current address, however it seems the Veteran did not complete the VA Form 21-8940 and Form 21-4192 due to a change in address. Given there is a new mailing address of record, the Board will again remand in order to give the Veteran an opportunity to complete a VA Form 21-8940, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and requests for verification from the Veteran’s prior employers. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Take appropriate action to develop and adjudicate the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, to include asking the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-8940, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and requests for verification from the Veteran’s prior employers. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Johnson, 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.