Citation Nr: 21004391 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-23 157 DATE: January 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial increased rating for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) with urinary tract infection, in excess of 40 percent, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1969 to August 1971, and from April 1976 to September 1993. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in Houston, Texas. In August 2018, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. In January 2019, the Board remanded the appeal for further development. In July 2020, the Board remanded the appeal for further development. 1. Entitlement to an initial increased rating for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) with urinary tract infection, in excess of 40 percent, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding the issues. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In the July 2020 Remand, the Board noted that A January record indicates that the Veteran is in receipt of Title II disability payments from the Social Security Administration. This indicates that there may be outstanding and relevant Social Security Administration records that have not been associated with the claims file. As these records may be relevant to the issues on appeal, a remand is required to allow VA to request these records. The Board directed the RO to “obtain the Veteran’s federal records from the Social Security Administration. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file.” The claims file indicates that the RO requested “SSA”records only and received a response from SSA that there were no medical records. The Board directed the RO to obtain the Veteran’s federal records, which include the Social Security Disability Determination and Transmittal, and associated documents. There is no evidence that the RO attempted to obtain the complete Social Security file, which creates evidentiary problems as the basis for the Veteran obtaining benefit payments is unknown. As such, the Board finds that the RO has not complied with the directives of the July 2020 remand. The Board errs when it fails to ensure substantial compliance with a Board remand. These records have not been associated with the claims folder. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (Board remand confers a right on a claimant to compliance with the remand order); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 147 (1999) (clarifying that substantial compliance with Board remand is required). Where the Board fails to ensure substantial compliance, remand is appropriate. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Accordingly, the Board finds it necessary to remand these issues for the RO to complete its development. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s complete Social Security records, to include any Social Security disability or pension determinations, transmitting sheets, or non-medical documents. If such records are not available, such unavailability should be documented in the record. The Veteran and his representative should be notified of unsuccessful efforts in order to allow them the opportunity to obtain and submit those records for VA review. 2. After completion of the above and any other development deemed necessary, review the expanded record, and readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, afforded an opportunity to respond, and the case should thereafter be returned to the Board for appellate review. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael J. O’Connor 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.