Citation Nr: 21062544 Decision Date: 10/08/21 Archive Date: 10/07/21 DOCKET NO. 17-32 416 DATE: October 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017 is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to June 27, 2017 is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017, the Veteran's PTSD manifested in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity without occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas or total social and occupational impairment. 2. For the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017, the Veteran's service-connected PTSD did not render her unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD for the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.14.14, 4.125, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU prior to June 27, 2017 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.10, 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from September 1989 to April 1991. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeal from a June 2015 and May 2017 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the claims to the RO in January 2020 for a new examination to access the current severity of the Veteran's disability, to obtain updated treatment records and to obtain the Veteran's Social Security Administration records. Updated VA treatment records were obtained as were the Social Security Administration records. A January 2020 letter requested that the Veteran complete appropriate authorization forms to allow VA to obtain treatment records from private medical sources on the Veteran's behalf. A VA examination was conducted in April 2020. The Board therefore determines that there has been substantial compliance with its previous remand. In an April 2020 rating decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) granted a 100 percent rating for PTSD, effective June 27, 2017, which is the highest schedular rating. As a higher rating is available for the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017, the claim remains on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). The Board also notes that the Veteran's only service connected disability is PTSD. Therefore, her claim for a TDIU beginning on June 27, 2017 is moot. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule), found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered because of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition should be emphasized. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Examination reports are to be interpreted in light of the whole recorded history, and each disability must be considered from the point of view of the appellant working or seeking work. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Where entitlement to compensation has been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation is to be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When reasonable doubt arises as to the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in the Veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods based on the facts found, a practice known as "staged" ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Staged ratings are appropriate whenever the factual findings show distinct periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Id. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting its decision, there is no obligation to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence of record. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). Therefore, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence where appropriate, and the Board's analysis will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as it relates to the Veteran's claims. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD for the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017 is denied. The Veteran generally contends that her PTSD symptoms are more severe than contemplated by the rating assigned. See August 2020 Appellate Brief. The Veteran's PTSD is rated under the General Rating Formula for Psychiatric Disabilities (General Formula). 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Psychiatric disabilities are rated based on the General Rating Formula codified in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, which provides disability ratings are based on a spectrum of symptoms. "A Veteran may qualify for a given disability rating by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of a similar severity, frequency, and duration." Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 117 (Fed. Cir. 2013). VA must consider all symptoms of a claimant's condition that affect the level of occupational and social impairment, including, if applicable, those identified in the American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. 1994) (DSM-IV) and (5th ed. 2013) (DSM-5). See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 44243 (2002). VA is to engage in a holistic analysis in which it assesses the severity, frequency, and duration of the signs and symptoms of the veteran's service-connected mental disorder; quantifies the level of occupational and social impairment caused by those signs and symptoms; and assigns an evaluation that most nearly approximates that level of occupational and social impairment. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017). Under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders per 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, a 50 percent rating is warranted if the disability is productive of occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. A 70 percent rating is warranted if the disability is productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A schedular maximum 100 percent rating is warranted if the disability is productive of total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id. In addition, when evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the lengths of remissions, and the veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a). The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. Id. However, when evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation on the basis of social impairment. The Board notes that with regard to the use of the phrase "such as" in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 (General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders), ratings are assigned according to the manifestations of particular symptoms. However, the use of the phrase "such as" in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve only as examples of the type and degree of the symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002). Accordingly, the evidence considered in determining the level of impairment under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 is not restricted to the symptoms provided in the Diagnostic Code. Instead, VA must consider all symptoms of a claimant's condition that affect the level of occupational and social impairment. A review of the record reveals that the Veteran sought mental health treatment from VA and private treatment providers, as well as treatment for her other health needs. To the extent that the Veteran's treatment records contain information relevant to the severity of her mental health, to include mental health screenings, the Board will summarize this evidence. Turning to the evidence, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2015 for psychiatric disabilities. The examiner diagnosed her with PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder secondary to PTSD and chronic back pain, as well as cannabis use disorder. The examiner noted occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, emphasizing that the Veteran's anxiety and irritability most interfered with her functioning. She reported symptoms of panic attacks more than once a week, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, hypervigilance describing checking doors and locks repeatedly, anxiety, poor sleeping habits, and angry outbursts resulting in hitting her son. However, she denied suicidal and homicidal ideations. The Veteran reported being married to her second husband for 20 years, but that things "suck" at home because they both have issues related to their military service. Further, she stated that she avoided intimacy with her husband because of her PTSD. The Veteran reported having two children but being distant from her son because of his drug use and being distant from her parents because of her son's drug use. She also stated that she is a legal guardian of two boys that are her neighbors and assists in their upbringing. She mentioned that she does not speak to anyone else in her family and she does not have a lot of friends because she does not trust anyone. The Veteran stated that she does all the house chores except vacuuming, because of her back. She also stated she has not worked in the past three years, because of her back problem and her medication decreased her functionality. She was arrested in 2006 for cocaine possession and in 2008 for marijuana possession. Currently, she smokes marijuana at night to sleep and during the day for her back pain. She drank heavily while in service and post -service until she was pregnant. She has not had a problem with drinking in the past 10 years. She further stated that she was sexually abused while in foster care, but she is not nearly as haunted as much by the incident as she is by memories of her abusive marriage while in service. The examiner noted that she was well-groomed, her speech was at a normal rate and her thoughts were logical. In a July 2016 mental health treatment note, it was stated that the year prior was filled with stress because the Veteran's father passed away and the relationship with her mother remained strained due to her divorce and the conflicted relationship with her daughter. The Veterans also reported that her son was hospitalized and nearly died because of a lung infection. The Veteran reported that she felt positively about the outcome of the divorce yet alternates between sadness and anger over her daughter's behavior towards her. She describes her current relationship with her partner and son as supportive. The examiner noted that the Veteran was casually dressed and appropriately groomed, that her speech was of normal rate, rhythm, and volume and that her thought process was logical and coherent. There was no evidence of a thought disorder. She denies current suicidal or homicidal ideation. In a September 2016 VA examination for her psychiatric disabilities, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder secondary to PTSD and chronic pain. The examiner noted occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The Veteran's psychiatric symptoms included depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks more than once a week, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions or recent events, disturbances of motivation and mood and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. In terms of her social impairments, the Veteran stated that she is living with her boyfriend of a couple of years but she is not happy with him. She stated that she cannot afford to live on her own. She feels the issue between them is that she is not happy within herself so cannot be happy with anyone else. The Veteran reported that her father died in December 2015 and that her son was in a coma and almost died in April 2016 from a lung infection, so it has been a very hard year for her. She has regrets about not being on speaking terms with her father when he died and states this is fueling her depression and her motivation is very low. The Veteran stated that she feels irritable a lot and worries about her family, especially her son. She describes him as a "deadbeat" and she is very distressed about the fact that he does not provide for his baby. The Veteran stated that last week she put her hand through a door because she was upset at her son. She reports having recurring memories of her trauma while in the military, with associated avoidance and reactivity. She also reported that she does not really talk to anyone in her family as she wants to get herself together first and she does not have any friends because where she lives there is no one she cares to talk to. In terms of her occupational impairments, the Veteran reiterated that she had not worked in the past five years. She states that she loved her job, but she was laid off due to her pain from fibromyalgia, back, and ovarian cysts. The Veteran stated that she has lost sense of ambition and enjoyment and she stays at home and does nothing. The examiner reported that the Veteran's speech was normal and her thoughts linear and logical. There were no delusions, no hallucinations, no suicidal or homicidal ideations and she is capable of managing her own affairs. The Veteran reported that she washes her hands and face a lot, and is very clean and when she gets upset, she tends to clean excessively, sometimes two hours a day, which then bothers her back. Further review of the record shows that the Veteran receives treatment from private treatment providers for various disabilities, to include her PTSD. However, there is no indication from the treatment notes of record that the Veteran has reported mental health symptoms that are worse than those noted above. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is not warranted at any time prior to June 27, 2017. Inasmuch, the Board finds that such disability was manifested by occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. In that regard, the Veteran did not display occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. Impairment to mood was demonstrated as the Veteran reported low motivation and depression. Although the Veteran described social strains with her family members and got a divorce during the appeal period, the Veteran described provoked irritability resulting from her son's drug use and lifestyle, not her PTSD, which caused a strain with her mother and her son at times. She also described tension with her daughter related to her divorce rather than her PTSD. In terms of her occupational impairment, although the Veteran stated that her medication made her unfunctional at work, she also stated that her back pain was the cause of her being let go from work. She also reported that she had been laid off from her last job due to her pain from fibromyalgia, back, and ovarian cysts in a September 2016 VA examination. Impairment to judgment or thinking was not demonstrated or alleged by the Veteran. Throughout the period on appeal, the Veteran did not report any suicidal or homicidal ideations, her speech was not illogical, but in fact logical and linear, she reported hypervigilant rituals such as checking the lock on doors, but did not report that it interfered with her routine activities. She reported having panic attacks more than once a week, but not that they were near-continuous. Her depressed mood did not affect her ability to function independently as she stated she did most of the chores and drove when she went out, although she avoided shopping and errands due to her back pain. See September 2016 VA examination. There were no reports of spatial disorientation and it was reported that the Veteran had good hygiene. School was not attempted during the appeal period. Therefore, a 70 percent rating is not warranted for the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017. The Veteran's symptoms also did not display total occupational and social impairment. Total social impairment was not demonstrated that the Veteran maintained a relationship with her boyfriend and children despite strains on those relationships. She reported mild memory loss, but did not report memory loss for names of close relatives, her own occupation, or her own name. Furthermore, there were no reports of delusions or hallucinations. She did not have gross impairment in thought processes or communication, and it was not reported that she had a disorientation to time or place. The Veteran was not in persistent danger of hurting herself or others and did not have grossly inappropriate behavior. Therefore, a 100 percent rating is not warranted for the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017. In making its determination in this case, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that her PTSD symptoms are more severe than the current rating reflects. While the Board recognizes that the Veteran is competent to provide statements regarding her observable symptomatology, she is not competent to provide an opinion regarding the severity of her symptomatology in accordance with the rating criteria. See Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007). Rather, the Board finds the medical evidence in which professionals with medical expertise examined the Veteran, acknowledged her reported symptoms, and described the manifestations of such disability considering the rating criteria to be more persuasive than the Veteran's reports regarding the severity of her condition. Despite the foregoing, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that her various symptoms and functional impairments warrant a higher rating prior to June 27, 2017. However, even after considering such contentions as to the effects of the disability on her daily life, the Board finds that the criteria for a higher rating are not met. The Rating Schedule contemplates such impairment under the ordinary conditions of daily life. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10; see also Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2007). This argument is therefore without merit. The Board has considered whether a staged rating under Hart, supra is appropriate; however, the Board finds that her symptomatology was been stable throughout the period on appeal. Therefore, assigning staged ratings is not warranted. The Veteran nor her representative have not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record in regard to the increased rating claim adjudicated herein. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD for the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to June 27, 2017 is denied. The Veteran contends that her service-connected disability along with the effects of her chronic back pain, obsessive compulsive disorder, attention deficit disorder, and ovarian cysts deemed her unable to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment. See November 2016 VA 21-8940 Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when a veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that if there is only one such disability, such disability shall be ratable as 60 percent or more, and if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Rating boards should submit to the Director of Compensation Service for extraschedular consideration all cases of Veterans who are unemployable by reason of service-connected disabilities but who fail to meet the percentage standards set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Unlike the regular disability rating schedule, which is based on the average work-related impairment caused by a disability, "entitlement to a TDIU is based on an individual's particular circumstances." Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2009). Therefore, when adjudicating a TDIU claim, VA must take into account the individual veteran's education, training, and work history. Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991) (level of education is a factor in deciding employability); see Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 294 (1994) (considering Veteran's experience as a pilot, his training in business administration and computer programming, and his history of obtaining and losing 19 jobs in the previous 18 years); Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532 (1994) (considering Veteran's 8th grade education and sole occupation as a farmer); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991) (considering Veteran's master's degree in education and his part-time work as a tutor). Age may not be considered as a factor when evaluating unemployability or intercurrent disability, and it may not be used as a basis for a total disability rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.19. There must be a determination that the service-connected disabilities are sufficient to produce unemployability without regard to advancing age or a non-service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. The sole fact that a claimant is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. A high rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment. The ultimate question, however, is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether he or she can find employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). An assessment of TDIU entitlement based on the combined effects of all service-connected disabilities should address all such disabilities. Therefore, the cumulative effects (functional impairment) of all service-connected disabilities should be addressed in determining if the service-connected disabilities prevent substantially gainful employment. Floore, 26 Vet. App. 376; accord Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In making such a determination, the Board must determine, as a question of fact, both the weight and credibility of the evidence. Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in a record and every item does not have the same probative value. The Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of all material evidence submitted by and on behalf of a claimant, account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Struck v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 145, 152 (1996); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 40 (1994); Abernathy v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 461, 465 (1992); Simon v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 621, 622 (1992); Hatlestad, 1 Vet. App. at 169. The Veteran's credibility affects the weight to be given to his or her testimony and lay statements, and it is the Board's responsibility to determine the appropriate weight. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). The credibility of a witness can be impeached by a showing of interest, bias, inconsistent statements, the demeanor of the witness, the facial plausibility of the testimony, the internal consistency of the testimony, impairment in memory, or, to a certain extent, bad character, among other factors. Caluza, 7 Vet. App. at 510-11, aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In particular, personal interest may affect the credibility of the evidence. Cartwright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991). The ultimate question is whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether he can find employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a); Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). For the appeal period to June 27, 2017, the Veteran had a combined 50 percent rating for the following service-connected disability: PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, cannabis use disorder (evaluated as 50 percent disabling from July 31, 2013). This is her only service connected disability. Therefore, the criteria for consideration of a TDIU pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) have not been met prior to June 27, 2017. However, when a Veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities but fails to meet the percentage requirements for a TDIU set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), the case may be referred to appropriate VA officials for consideration of assignment of a TDIU rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Turning to the functional impact of the Veteran's disability, in an October 2012 medical treatment note, the Veteran reported that she lost her job due to back pain and numbness and tingling and now she is depressed. The examiner noted that her back pain was aggravated by bending, sitting, standing, and driving. In a June 2015 VA examination for her psychiatric disabilities, the examiner stated that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The examiner emphasized that her impairment is primarily due to PTSD, as it is her anxiety and irritability that most interfere with her functioning. The Veteran reported that she formerly worked at a plumbing company and loved her job but her back problem made it hard for her to sit for long periods of time and her employer did not allow her to get up and move around during the day, so she was laid off. She also stated she was not functioning well at work due to the pain medications she was taking. She obtained another job at a body shop for three years, but again her back problems limited what she could do; so, she left that job for a better job. The Veteran states she could not start looking for employment, because she had not been able to get a medical release to return to work. In a September 2016 VA examination, the examiner stated that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The Veteran reported being laid off due to her pain from fibromyalgia, back pain and ovarian cysts. She mentioned that her employer would not allow her to move around during the day to accommodate her pain and she could not look for work until she gets clearance from her doctor regarding her back condition. In the November 2016 Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability (VA Form 21-8940), the Veteran stated that her last employment position was as a medical receptionist in September 2012. From 2008 to 2009 she made $150.00 per month; in the summer of 2010 she reported $200.00 per month and from 2010 to 2012 she reported $1800.00 per month. The Veteran stated that her service-connected disabilities included PTSD, obsessive compulsive disorder and attention deficit disorder. However, the Veteran is not service-connected for obsessive compulsive disorder or attention deficit disorder. In a January 2020 SSA Disability Report, the Veteran reported that her primary disability was a back disorder and her secondary disability was a muscle disorder. She reported her inability to work began as of September 2012. SSA concluded that she has sedentary work capability. The examiner concluded that fibromyalgia and chronic pain would not prevent the Veteran from standing, walking, and bending in a satisfactory manner for most daily activities. Based on the foregoing, and in consideration of the pertinent clinical findings, including the Veteran's reports that her barriers to employment included her service-connected PTSD and chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, ovarian cysts, obsessive compulsive disorder and attention deficit disorder, the Board concludes that the functional impact of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD on her employability does not warrant an extraschedular TDIU. The Board notes that the Veteran's subjective reports about her ability to obtain and maintain gainful employment is conflicting. The Veteran states on her VA Form 21-8940 and in the June 2015 VA examination that her psychiatric disabilities were the cause of her unemployment. However, she also stated in October 2012 during her treatment that her back pain was the cause of her losing her job and in the September 2016 VA examination, she reported being laid off due to her pain from fibromyalgia back pain and ovarian cysts. On her VA Form 21-8940, she included obsessive compulsive disorder or attention deficit disorder as additional disabilities affecting her job loss and on her SSA form, she reported her primary disability was a back disorder, and her secondary disability was a muscle disorder. The Board has carefully considered the Veteran's statements regarding the effects of her service-connected PTSD on her employability. Although the Veteran experienced some limitations as a result of her service-connected psychiatric disabilities, and these have been found to cause some impact on her daily functioning and earning capacity, that impact was considered in the scheduler ratings currently assigned. Simply stated, if she did not have impairment with her service-connected disabilities, there would be no basis for the 50 percent combined rating impairment for such prior to June 27, 2017. The fact that she was having difficulties does not provide a basis to grant TDIU. Significantly, the January 2020 SSA examiner concluded that she has sedentary work capability and emphasizing that her non-service connected fibromyalgia and chronic pain would not prevent the Veteran from standing, walking, and bending in a satisfactory manner for most daily activities. Findings from SSA can constitute probative evidence with respect to a TDIU claim. See Collier v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 413, 417 (1991). Moreover, the Board notes that the Veteran herself asserted that she was unemployable as a result of a combination of her service connected and nonservice connected disabilities. In that regard, the Veteran included her back condition, fibromyalgia, ovarian cysts, obsessive compulsive disorder and attention deficit disorder as reasons for unemployment in addition to her service-connected PTSD. However, as discussed above, the functional impact of her service-connected PTSD is considered in the schedular ratings assigned. Consideration of the functional effects of nonservice-connected disabilities, are precluded as such disabilities are not service connected. This argument is therefore without merit. Accordingly, referral of this claim to the Director of the Compensation Service for consideration of such rating is not warranted and a TDIU rating is not warranted. While the Veteran clearly had functional impairments associated with her service-connected PTSD, these problems form the basis of the functional impairment assigned. Accordingly, the Board concludes that referral of this issue for extraschedular consideration of TDIU pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b), is not appropriate, and that a TDIU is not warranted for the appeal period prior to June 27, 2017. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Adeyemi, 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.