Citation Nr: 21068981 Decision Date: 11/17/21 Archive Date: 11/17/21 DOCKET NO. 20-16 995 DATE: November 17, 2021 ORDER The appeal seeking entitlement to an earlier effective date for the establishment of eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) under 38 U.S.C. § Chapter 35 is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with a history of alcohol dependence, in remission, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an effective date prior to February 7, 2016, for the grant of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During the December 2020 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision by the Board, the Veteran indicated that he was withdrawing his appeal as to entitlement to an earlier effective date for the establishment of eligibility to DEA under 38 U.S.C. § Chapter 35. 2. For the period on appeal, the Veteran's PTSD with a history of alcohol dependence, in remission, results in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity but not occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the establishment of eligibility to DEA under 38 U.S.C. § Chapter 35 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2020). 2. The criteria for a disability rating greater than 50 percent for PTSD are not met or approximated. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty in the Army from September 1965 to September 1968, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). In December 2020, the Veteran testified during a virtual Board hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record and has been reviewed. In December 2019, the Board remanded the Veteran's claims for entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD with a history of alcohol dependence, in remission, and entitlement to an effective date prior to February 7, 2016 for the grant of a TDIU for issuance of a Statement of the Case. The claims for service connection for right ear hearing loss and an entitlement to increased ratings for tinea versicolor with neurodermatitis were also remanded for further development. See Board Remand dated December 3, 2019. A Statement of the Case dated March 2020 addresses the issues of entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD and entitlement to an effective date prior to February 7, 2016 for a TDIU. Therefore, the Board finds substantial compliance with its December 2019 remand. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that there must be substantial compliance with the terms of a Court or Board remand). In an October 2020 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for right ear hearing loss, which is a full grant of the benefits on appeal for that claim. As such, the issue of entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is no longer before the Board for appellate consideration. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). The claim for increased ratings for tinea versicolor with neurodermatitis will be adjudicated in a separate Board decision. Competence of Examiner In November 2020 correspondence, the Veteran's representative challenged the competence of a VA examiner, but did not specify which VA examiner or examination was of concern. See Correspondence from representative received November 4, 2020. Notably, during the Board's December 2020 hearing, the representative failed to raise this issue or offer clarification to her November 2020 correspondence. See Hearing Transcript. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently issued a panel decision in Francway v. Wilkie, affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which found that when a challenge to the competency of the medical examiner is raised, the Board must make a factual finding as to whether the medical examiner is competent. Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1307-08 (Fed. Cir. 2019). VA examination reports bear the date of the examination, the name of the examiner, and the date the report was signed by the examiner. Here, however, the representative has not identified a specific VA examination or examiner or any specific problems with an examination regarding the issues on appeal. Indeed, it is not clear that the representative's assertion has anything to do with the instant claim on appeal. Absent even minimal specificity in this regard, the Board is unable to assess whether there is any merit to the representative's assertion. The Board finds that the representative's November 2020 correspondence fails to raise the question of competency of any VA examiner with sufficient clarity. Hence, the presumption of competency regarding VA examiners who have rendered examination reports and opinions relevant to any claims in this appeal has not been rebutted. See Francway, 940 F.3d at 1308. As the representative has failed to question the competence of a specific VA examiner, no action by the Board is required as VA's duty to assist in this regard has not been triggered. See Francway, 940 F.3d at 1308 (request for information as to the competency of "the examiner" triggers VA's duty to assist under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A); see also Harris v. Shinseki, 704 F.3d 946, 948 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Preliminary Matter The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Dismissal of DEA Chapter 35 Earlier Effective Date Claim The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Appeals withdrawals must be in writing, except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. During the December 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran and his representative indicated that the Veteran wished to withdraw the appeal regarding the issues of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the establishment of eligibility to DEA under 38 U.S.C. § Chapter 35. See Board Hearing Transcript dated December 7, 2020 (Hearing Transcript) at pg. 2. The Board notes that this request was reduced to writing in the hearing transcript. Therefore, there remain no question of fact or law for appellate consideration regarding these issues. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal regarding this claim and it is dismissed. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204; see Evans v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 7, 15 (2011). Increased Ratings Applicable Laws and Regulations Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. 38 U.S.C. § 1155. It is not expected that all cases will show all the findings specified; however, findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom and coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all instances. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. Where there is a question as to which of two disability ratings shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the low rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. It is the defined and consistently applied policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case. When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. In general, all disabilities, including those arising from a single disease entity, are rated separately, and all disability ratings are then combined in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. Pyramiding, the rating of the same disability, or the same manifestation of a disability, under different diagnostic codes (DC or DCs), is to be avoided when rating a veteran's service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. It is possible for a veteran to have separate and distinct manifestations from the same injury which would permit rating under several DC; however, the critical element in doing so is that none of the symptomatology is duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994). The assignment of a particular DC is "completely dependent on the facts of a particular case." See Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532, 538 (1993). One DC may be more appropriate than another based on such factors as an individual's relevant medical history, the DC, and the demonstrated symptomatology. Any change in a DC by VA must be specifically explained. See Pernorio v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 625 (1992). When a claimant is awarded service connection and assigned an initial disability rating, separate disability ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time in accordance with the facts found. Where the veteran is appealing the rating for an already established service-connected condition, his or her present level of disability is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Staged ratings are appropriate for an increased rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). A veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge, not medical expertise, as it comes to him or her through their senses. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology, where the determination is not medical in nature and is capable of lay observation. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The claimant bears the burden of presenting and supporting his claim for benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a). See Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Rating Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders Under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders, a noncompensable rating is warranted where a mental condition has been diagnosed, but symptoms are not severe enough either to interfere with occupational and social functioning or to require continuous medication. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411. A 50 percent rating is warranted for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent rating is warranted if the evidence establishes there is 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 work like setting); and/or inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A 100 percent rating (total occupational and social impairment) is warranted 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. When determining the appropriate disability evaluation to assign, the Board's primary consideration is the Veteran's symptoms, but it must also make findings as to how those symptoms impact a Veteran's occupational and social impairment. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The use of the term "such as" in the rating criteria demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve 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). Thus, the Board need not find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms to award a specific rating. Id. at 442. Nevertheless, all ratings in the general rating formula are also associated with objectively observable symptomatology and the plain language of the regulation makes it clear that the Veteran's impairment must be "due to" those symptoms; a Veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration. Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118. The Board recognizes that the Court in Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. 436, stated that the symptoms listed in VA's general Rating Formula for mental disorders is not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve as examples of the type and degree of the symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating; however, the Court further indicated that, without those examples, differentiating between rating evaluations would be extremely ambiguous. Rating Analysis The AOJ has assigned an initial 50 percent disability rating for the Veteran's PTSD with a history of alcohol dependence, in remission, under DC 9411 based on occupational and social impairment, with reduced reliability and productivity due to weekly panic attacks, an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships, suspiciousness, disturbances of motivation and mood, and chronic sleep impairment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411; Rating Decision dated January 9, 2013. The Veteran claims that a higher rating is warranted. Turning to the record, July 2016 VA treatment notes reflect that the Veteran met with a VA social worker because of concerns over whether he and his spouse would be able to afford to purchase their own home as they were moving out of their son's home where they were residing. On examination, the Veteran was alert and oriented in all spheres, he was appropriately dressed, his speech was of normal rate, this thought content was clear and logical, his mood was pleasant, and his affect was appropriate. He was negative for suicidal or homicidal ideation. During a December 2016 VA neurology consultation, the Veteran reported that he consumed one drink of hard liquor per week, down from two drinks a day for years. He said his marital status was "divorced." He was negative for anxiety and depression. May 2017 VA neurology consultation notes reflect that the Veteran denied anxiety and depression. On examination, the Veteran was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. His memory and attention were unimpaired. The Veteran said he was not seeing any doctors outside VA. The Veteran was seen by his VA primary care physician in September 2017 for right elbow edema. At that time, the Veteran denied anxiety, depression, suicidal and homicidal ideation, and hallucinations. In October 2017, the Veteran underwent a VA PTSD examination, at which time the VA examiner confirmed the diagnosis of PTSD, noting that the Veteran no longer has a diagnosis of alcohol dependence as it was in remission. During the examination, the Veteran denied mental health treatment, hospitalizations, or suicide attempts, and he was not taking any psychotropic medications. It was noted that the mental health of the Veteran's family was within normal limits. The Veteran said he continued to drink about two ounces of hard liquor daily, which was reduced from previous amounts. In terms of social impairment, the examiner noted that the Veteran has been married to his wife since 1969. He indicated that they were having problems for a while, but things have gotten better between them, although he no longer feels any love toward his wife. He said he has no friends. He said he cares about his children and is concerned for their well-being. He noted that his daughter has breast cancer. In terms of occupational impairment, the examiner noted that the Veteran said he was retired but "works occasionally." On examination, the Veteran was dressed casually and neatly, and he was engaged in the examination process. He was visibly upset when recalling traumatic incidents from his time in Vietnam. The Veteran reported that he was feeling as though he had no emotions or feelings of much of anything and that he no longer engaged in enjoyable activities. The examiner administered Life Events Inventory (LEI) and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS5) evaluations, indicating results of 37 and 13, respectively, noting that the Veteran's distress was mild for some symptoms, more severe for others. "For example, he no longer has nightmares, but will have a flashback now and then." The examiner noted that the frequency of the Veteran's symptoms had lessened over time but were still present. The VA examiner identified PTSD symptoms of suspiciousness; panic attacks that occur weekly or less often; chronic sleep impairment; disturbances of motivation and mood; and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's PTSD resulted in occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by continuous medication. The examiner determined that the Veteran was capable of handling his financial affairs. Regarding the impact of PTSD symptoms on the Veteran's ability to work, the examiner opined that the Veteran had intrusive thoughts that interfere with the ability to stay focused on the task at hand. See VA PTSD examination report dated October 17, 2017. In January 2018, the Veteran was seen for flu symptoms at a VA medical office. On examination, the Veteran was alert and oriented in all spheres, and he denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. During an April 2018 VA appointment for neuropathy, the Veteran said he was seeing no doctors outside of VA. On examination, he was alert and oriented in all spheres. He denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. The Veteran's memory and attention were unimpaired, and the Veteran was negative for anxiety and depression. June 2018 VA treatment notes reflect that the Veteran was seen for allergies. At that time, he was alert and oriented in all spheres, and he denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. It was noted that the Veteran was not gravely disabled due to a mental disorder. December 2018 VA treatment notes reflect that the Veteran was seen for polyneuropathy and sensory ataxia. During the appointment, he was alert and oriented in all spheres, there were no memory or attention impairment, and he was negative for anxiety and depression. In May 2019, while requesting a refill of medication at VA, a depression screening was negative. The Veteran was observed to be alert and oriented in all spheres, and he denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. During a September 2019 VA outpatient appointment for neuropathy, the Veteran was negative for anxiety and depression. The Veteran was alert and oriented in all spheres, and it was noted that his memory and attention were unimpaired. The Veteran was seen in April 2020 for a VA neurology follow-up appointment, at which time he was negative for anxiety and depression. In June 2020, the Veteran was admitted to a VA medical center after experiencing breathing problems. A depression screening was negative. Mental status and cognition evaluations were consistently "normal" during his hospitalization, reflecting that he was alert and oriented in all spheres. The Veteran denied depression, anxiety, and difficulty sleeping. Following discharge, the Veteran was seen in late June 2020 during a VA outpatient appointment after reporting he was feeling unwell. On examination, the Veteran was alert and oriented in all spheres. He denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. A PTSD screening was negative. During the December 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that he drinks a lot to deal with his PTSD symptoms. See Hearing Transcript at pg. 11. The Veteran indicated that he had a low tolerance for disagreements, that he would become frustrated and angry quickly with verbal, but not physical, aggression, and that he was abrupt with people over insignificant issues. Additionally, he said at times he yelled at people and verbally threatened them during episodes of anger, which would take 30 minutes to recover from. Id. at pgs. 11-12. The Veteran also endorsed difficulty concentrating, flashbacks triggered by seeing references to Vietnam or television coverage of soldiers or war zones. Id. at pg. 13. A March 2021 Vocational Assessment by private rehabilitation counselor S.H. reflects that S.H. reviewed the Veteran's VA claims file and conducted a telephone interview with the Veteran in preparing the assessment. During the interview, S.H. said the Veteran's PTSD caused impaired concentration and interrupted sleep due, in part, to depression, frequently awakening, and nightmares, which impacted his focus during the day. See Vocational Assessment at pgs. 3-4, 8. The Veteran endorsed occasional panic attacks and flashbacks, as well as sadness and crying episodes. The Veteran described difficulty with motivation and completing tasks, impaired focus and concentration, a feeling that his head felt "muddled," and loss of interest in reading, a pastime he once enjoyed. The Veteran also endorsed anger, suspiciousness, and aggressiveness interacting with others. Id. On review of all the evidence, both lay and medical, the Board finds that the criteria for a higher rating of 70 percent for PTSD with a history of alcohol dependence, in remission, are not met or approximated. The evidence reflects that the Veteran's PTSD is primarily productive of suspiciousness; panic attacks occurring weekly or less often; flashbacks; nightmares; chronic sleep impairment; disturbances of motivation and mood; quick to frustration and anger resulting in verbal aggression toward others, and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Although the March 2021 Vocational Assessment suggests that the Veteran suffers from depression and impaired concentration, this is inconsistent with the Veteran's VA treatment records throughout the rating period reflecting an absence of depression and unimpaired memory and attention, and the author S.H. offered no explanation or attempt to reconcile this inconsistency to the detriment of the assessment's probative weight. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Nonetheless, occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, the criteria for a 70 percent rating under DC 9411, generally requires symptoms of deficiencies in 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 work like setting); and/or inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411. Although the symptoms listed under DC 9411 serve as mere examples of the type and degree of the symptoms, and their effects, which would justify a particular rating, Mauerhan, supra, here, the record reflects that the Veteran consistently denied suicidal ideation, his speech was normal, panic attacks occurred weekly or less, he functions independently, he has been found capable of managing his own financial affairs, he and his spouse were planning to buy a home, and he has continuously appeared alert, oriented, and cooperative. While the Veteran has endorsed verbal aggression toward others, he emphasized during the December 2020 Board hearing that he has not been physically aggressive toward others. Additionally, the record does not reflect that the Veteran engages in obsessional rituals. Based on the medical and lay evidence of record, the Board finds that a higher and rating of 70 percent under DC 9411 is not warranted. Although the Veteran's PTSD is shown to result in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, it is not shown to rise to the level of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. To the extent that the Veteran asserts entitlement to an effective date earlier than the commencement of the rating period for an increase for PTSD, the Board need not address that argument as an increase in the currently assigned rating is not warranted as shown above. See Post Hearing Memorandum received March 17, 2021. Finally, neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 69-70 (2017). REASONS FOR REMAND A remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the claim so that the Veteran is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2020). The Veteran seeks an effective date for entitlement to a TDIU prior to February 7, 2016, the effective date assigned by the AOJ on the basis of the Veteran's last day of employment with a transportation company. See Rating Decision dated November 14, 2017. Information relevant to the Veteran's claim is contradictory and/or unclear. For example, the Veteran's May 2017 TDIU application reflects his assertion that he became too disabled to work in July 2006 because of service-connected disabilities. See Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability (VA Form 21-8940) received May 31, 2017. However, income tax forms submitted by the Veteran reflect that he was employed during tax year 2014. See Correspondence from MTG dated June 15, 2017; "Income and Tax Statements" with VBMS receipt date April 8, 2020. Additionally, correspondence from the entity the Veteran identified as his last employer reflects that he was an independent contractor for the entity from January 21, 2014 to February 6, 2016, and the October 2017 VA PTSD examination notes that the Veteran worked occasionally at that time. See VA PTSD examination dated October 17, 2017 at pg. 5, Section 2B. Adding to the confusion, the Veteran submitted a table of figures, the column headings of which are obscured, and which bears handwritten notations at the bottom of the form with "line" numbers, some of which correspond to the line numbers in the tax return, while others do not. Moreover, some figures entered in the tax forms are crossed out, and the tax return is unsigned by the Veteran or the tax preparer whose business card is among the documents submitted. Lastly, a document bearing the caption "Social Security Benefits Worksheet," is unreadable. See "Income and Tax Statements" with VBMS receipt date April 8, 2020. There are no tax returns for 2015 or 2016. As the Veteran's relevant employment history does not appear to be fully or clearly reflected in the record, information critical to the proper adjudication of this claim, remand is warranted to determine when the Veteran's service-connected disabilities rendered him unable to work, if at all, and clarify the conflicting and unreadable evidence submitted in support of his claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that all outstanding VA treatment records are associated with the claims file. 2. Provide the Veteran with an application for entitlement to a TDIU (VA Form 21-8940) and request that he complete and return the application to help ensure that VA has all pertinent information regarding his educational background and employment history. Allow a reasonable time for the Veteran's reply. 3. Request that the Veteran or his representative submit supporting evidence relevant to the Veteran's claim for entitlement to a TDIU that addresses the deficiencies in evidence identified by the Board in the Remand herein. Allow a reasonable time for the Veteran's reply. 4. Then, readjudicate the remanded claim. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Farrell, 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.