Citation Nr: 21003815 Decision Date: 01/22/21 Archive Date: 01/22/21 DOCKET NO. 09-09 555 DATE: January 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the West Virginia Army National Guard, which included a period of initial active duty for training from October 1981 to March 1982. She also had service in the United States Army Reserve. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2007 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This appeal originally included claims for increased evaluations for the left knee, left ankle, and psychiatric disabilities, in addition to the above claim. The increased evaluation claims have been addressed and are no longer in appellate status. See June 2012, August 2014, July 2015, and November 2017 Board decisions; May 2017 and March 2019 rating decisions. In the August 2014 decision, the Board denied the TDIU claim. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In May 2015, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion) filed by the parties and remanded the claim to the Board. The Board most recently remanded the case for further development in February 2020, and it has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. In the February 2020 remand, the Board determined that a remand was required for the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to attempt to obtain a Social Security Administration (SSA) earnings statement showing the Veteran’s income history, in addition to any requests made to the Veteran for such information. The AOJ did request additional information from the Veteran without response. Nevertheless, it does not appear that the AOJ attempted to contact SSA, and a remand is required to ensure compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see also November 2017 Board remand (noted inconsistent income information of record and question of marginal employment) and March 2019 deferral; December 2017, March 2020, and July 2020 AOJ letters to Veteran. It also remains important that the Board have an accurate picture of the Veteran’s occupational history. The case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Request a copy of any decision to grant or deny SSA benefits to the Veteran and the records upon which that decision was based and any SSA earnings statements showing the Veteran’s income history, to the extent permissible by law. If the search for such records has negative results, the claims file should be properly documented as to the unavailability of those records. See March 2019 deferral; February 2020 Board remand, p. 3. The Veteran and her representative may wish to obtain any such records and submit them to the AOJ in support of her appeal. The Veteran is hereby advised that an accurate picture of her earnings and employment history is necessary to adjudicate this claim, and if she does not ensure VA has this information, then her claim will be considered based on incomplete evidence. It is ultimately her responsibility to submit the evidence needed to support her claim. Her VA treatment records indicate she has been working since the early 2000’s as a security guard, and if this employment only provides marginal income, she must submit information showing such. See July 2020 development letter. 2. Review the case on the basis of any additional evidence. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and her representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Postek, 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.