Citation Nr: 21002733 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-61 671 DATE: January 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to September 1969. In April 2019, the Board denied the appeal. The Veteran subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) and, following a June 2020 joint motion for remand, the Court vacated the April 2019 Board decision based on inadequate reasons and bases. The issue is once again before the Board. At the time of the April 2019 Board decision, VA treatment records through October 2017 were of record. Since that time, VA treatment records dated from October 2017 to October 2019 have been associated with the claims file. These records show, among other things, that the Veteran continued to work part time, eight to twenty hours per week, at a bait and tackle shop. At the same time, records dated from September and October 2019 revealed a continued progression his service-connected diabetes mellitus, to include possible nephrology as well as diabetic retinopathy. As the Veteran contends that a TDIU is warranted based largely in part on his service-connected diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy, the VA treatment records dated after October 2017 are pertinent to the appeal but have not yet been considered by the AOJ in the first instance. Before such consideration takes place, records dated after October 2019 should be associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims file all outstanding VA treatment records, to include those dated from October 2019 to the present associated with the VA Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska. 2. After completion of the above, readjudicate the claim. If any benefit requested on appeal is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and provided an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Schlickenmaier, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.