Citation Nr: 21064190 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 18-37 577 DATE: October 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to individual unemployability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence weighs in favor of a finding that the Veteran is not capable of substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for individual unemployability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a) (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1965 to July 1969. His appeal was previously remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) in July 2019 to obtain a medical opinion, which was completed in December 2019, and annotated in June 2020. An award of individual unemployability, also known as a Total Disability for Individual Unemployability (TDIU), may be granted where the schedular rating is less than total, when it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or as a result of two or more disabilities, provided at least one is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). The Veteran's service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is rated 50 percent disabling; addition of his other service-connected disabilities brings the combined rating to 70 percent disabling. Therefore, the schedular criteria for TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a) are met. The ultimate question before the Board is whether the Veteran is capable of substantial gainful employment; this is a determination for the Board to make as the adjudicator of this appeal. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Considering all the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence weighs in favor of a finding that the Veteran is not capable of substantially gainful employment. The December 2019 VA PTSD examination report noted that "[t]he veteran would likely have problems with concentration and relating to others in the employment situation. [] He would likely have low tolerance for issues with customers or peers due to his depressogenic thoughts and chronic feelings of remorse and regret." This VA examination report also noted that the Veteran had "deficiencies in most areas" in terms of occupational and social functioning, an increase from the previous examination. The same examiner was asked to provide an opinion in June 2020 as to all the Veteran's conditions in the aggregate. While noting that she could not address physical conditions as it was "out of the area of expertise" for her as a mental health professional, she did clarify that the Veteran had anger problems at his previous employment, "poor tolerance for customers who complained, intrusive recollections and being depressed the day after a bad nightmare which can affect work the next day." Similarly, a different VA examiner found that the Veteran's service-connected shoulder condition would "severely decrease his ability to lift, reach, carry, move or push equipment," or to use his left arm to type at a computer. Additionally, both the Veteran's shoulder condition and his service-connected migraine headaches were noted to interfere with his concentration, affecting his ability to complete job assignments in a timely fashion. In sum, the evidence shows that the Veteran's service-connected PTSD, coupled with his service-connected shoulder and migraine headache conditions, have a significant impact on his capacity for substantially gainful employment. Affording the Veteran the benefit-of-the-doubt, the Board finds that he is unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities. The evidence is in favor of the grant of a TDIU. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2020). Considering the procedural history of this appeal, the Board finds that the AOJ should assign the effective date in the first instance as an appealable issue. J. M. Kirby Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals 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.