Citation Nr: 21070752 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/25/21 DOCKET NO. 17-16 738A DATE: November 26, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected residuals, facial trauma (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eye lid), is denied. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches is denied. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected traumatic deviated nasal septum with scar is denied. The reduction to a 30 percent rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder (PTSD), polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine, effective August 26, 2015, was improper; restoration of the prior 70 percent rating is granted. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 70 percent from August 26, 2015 for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine, is denied. Entitlement to a temporary total rating for hospitalization for service-connected PTSD is granted from September 6, 2016 to January 6, 2017, to the extent the law allows for payment of additional benefits. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected traumatic brain injury (TBI) is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to February 20, 2014 for the 30 percent evaluation for service-connected post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to February 20, 2014 for the 30 percent evaluation for service-connected residuals, facial trauma (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eyelid) is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 12, 2016 for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's residuals, facial trauma (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eye lid) manifest with two characteristics of disfigurementsurface contour of scar elevated on palpation and scar with at least 0.6 cm wide at widest part. 2. The Veteran's post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches have not manifested with very frequent completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability. 3. The Veteran's service-connected traumatic deviated nasal septum with scar is currently assigned a 10 percent rating, which is the maximum available schedular rating. 4. In a May 2010 rating decision, the Veteran was granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder with a 30 percent rating, effective May 11, 2009. 5. In a May 2012 rating decision, RO granted a higher rating of 70 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder, effective February 27, 2012; subsequently, in an April 2014 rating decision, RO assigned a temporary evaluation of 100 percent effective July 22, 2009 (based on hospitalization over 21 days), a 30 percent rating from January 1, 2010, a 70 percent rating from February 27, 2012 (based on hospitalization over 21 days), a 100 percent effective March 6, 2012, and a 70 percent from July 1, 2012. 6. In a September 2015 rating decision, RO decreased the 70 percent rating assigned for posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine to 30 percent, effective August 26, 2015. 7. Effective August 26, 2015, the Veteran's service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine has manifested by symptoms approximating occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. 8. From September 6, 2016 to January 6, 2017, the Veteran was hospitalized and received treatment for his service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine. 9. The Veteran's service-connected traumatic brain injury (TBI) has manifested by mild impairment of memory, attention, concentration, and executive functions; it has not manifested by a level of impairment of "2" or higher in any facet of cognitive impairment or other residuals of TBI not otherwise specified. 10. The Veteran submitted an application for an increased rating for his post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches and facial trauma residuals (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eyelid) on February 20, 2014. 11. It was not factually ascertainable based on the lay and medical evidence of record that the Veteran's post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches manifested with very frequent completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability, in the one-year period prior to February 20, 2014. 12. It was not factually ascertainable based on the lay and medical evidence of record that the Veteran's facial trauma residuals (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eyelid) manifested with more than three characteristics of disfigurement, in the one-year period prior to February 20, 2014. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected residuals, facial trauma (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eye lid) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, Diagnostic Code (Code) 7800. 2. The criteria for entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8100. 3. The criteria for entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected traumatic deviated nasal septum with scar, previously rated as residuals, nose injury, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § § 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.27, 4.97, DC 6502. 4. The rating reduction from 70 percent to 30 percent, effective August 26, 2015, for the service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine, was improper, and the criteria for restoration of the prior 70 percent rating have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105 (e), 3.344. 5. The criteria for entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 70 percent from August 26, 2015 for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.27, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9411. 6. The criteria for entitlement to a temporary total rating for hospitalization for service-connected psychiatric condition have been met from September 6, 2016 to January 6, 2017. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.29. 7. The criteria for entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected traumatic brain injury (TBI) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4,3, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code (Code) 8045. 8. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date prior to February 20, 2014 for the 30 percent evaluation for service-connected residuals, facial trauma (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eyelid) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. 9. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date prior to February 20, 2014 for the 30 percent evaluation for service-connected post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1980 to December 1982, and from January 2003 to May 2004. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). While the Veteran had initially requested a Board hearing (see VA Form 9), he subsequently withdrew that request (see November 2018 VA 27-0820 form). As noted above, the current appeal stems from the September 2015 rating decision, which in part, implemented a reduction (from 70 percent to 30 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine, effective August 26, 2015). The Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) in January 2016 disputing the September 2015 rating decision, although ambiguous as to which aspects of the September 2015 rating decision he was disagreeing with regarding service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine (ie. the reduction or the increased rating). While the RO did not adjudicate the propriety of the reduction in the statement of the case (SOC) or supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), as will be discussed in detail in a separate section below, there was a procedural error, which means the reduction was improper and the prior rating will be restored. Considering that the restoration of the prior rating is fully favorable to the Veteran, and given the NOD was ambiguous as to which aspects the Veteran disagreed with (reduction or increased rating), the Board will adjudicate both the issue of reduction and the claim of entitlement to an increased rating for posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine. With regards to entitlement to a temporary total rating for hospitalization for service-connected PTSD from September 2016 to January 2017, it appears that the Veteran failed to file a proper notice of disagreement (NOD) to a January 2017 rating decision, in which RO first denied this matter. The RO subsequently issued a deferred rating in June 2017, stating that "review of the form 9 shows that the Veteran reported some issues not addressed by the SOC. Specifically, the Veteran indicates paragraph 29 which was addressed by January 2017 Rating Decision and is not part of the current appeal." Here, the Board finds an additional discussion on the procedural history relevant. Notably, the September 2015 rating decision addressed denial of temporary total rating for hospitalization for service-connected PTSD, but seemingly for the alleged hospitalization in 2014. The Veteran then filed a timely NOD in January 2016, in which the Veteran noted "will discuss about PTSD on phone interview." In October 2016, he filed a VA 21-526 form and 21-4138 form noting his treatment for PTSD at WLA domiciliary beginning September 6, 2016. A SOC was issued in February 2017, in which the analysis on entitlement to a higher rating for service-connected PTSD included denial of a temporary total rating for hospitalization for service-connected PTSD. The Veteran filed a VA Form 9 in April 2017, stating that he was hospitalized for his psychiatric condition from September 2016 to January 2017. Nonetheless, in a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) subsequently issued in September 2017, the RO specifically addressed, again within the analysis provided as to entitlement to a higher rating for service-connected PTSD, the issue of entitlement to a temporary total rating for hospitalization for service-connected PTSD from September 2016 to January 2017, which was denied. Since the RO did address this claim, although not listed as a separate issue in the SOC or SSOC, the Board will proceed to address this matter in detail in the separate section below. In addition, the Board finds an earlier effective date of a total disability based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to October 12, 2016 is on appeal in this case for the following reasons. The RO granted TDIU effective October 12, 2016 pursuant to a January 2017 rating decision. The Veteran has not disagreed with this effective date. However, in 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), in Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018), held that when, as here, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU becomes part and parcel of an underlying appeal for a higher disability rating, the grant of a TDIU does not bifurcate the appeal and a Notice of Disagreement does not need to be filed to challenge the effective date assigned for the award of a TDIU. If the grant of a TDIU does not encompass the entire disability rating period on appeal, it serves as a partial grant and the remaining period remains in appellate status. Here, the Veteran's increased rating claim for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine, is currently on appeal, and the Veteran has claimed that his ability to work has been affected by his service-connected PTSD/depression from the period preceding 2016 (see 21-8940 forms). Thus, under Harper and Rice v. Shinseki (22 Vet. App. 447 (2009)), the Board finds an earlier effective date of TDIU prior to October 12, 2016 is on appeal. However, as will be addressed further in the Remand section below, the Board finds remand necessary at this time for due process reasons. The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board"); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the Board need not discuss any potential issues in this regard. 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 evidence favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). When there is a balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material issue, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). Reasonable doubt is doubt which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The question is whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the claimant prevailing in either event, or whether a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which event the claim must be denied. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. The Board has reviewed all the evidence of record. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting its decisions, there is no requirement that the Board discuss every piece of evidence in the record. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Board will summarize the relevant evidence, as deemed appropriate, and the Board's analysis will focus on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as to the claim. Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. If two evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will 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. The Veteran's entire history is reviewed when making a disability determination. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where the Veteran timely appealed the rating initially assigned for the service-connected disability within one year of the notice of the establishment of service connection for it, VA must consider whether the Veteran is entitled to "staged" ratings to compensate him for times since filing his claim when his disability may have been more severe than at other times during the course of his appeal. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). But where service connection has already been established, and increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of the disability that is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994). However, in such cases, when the factual findings show distinct time periods during which a claimant exhibits symptoms of the disability at issue and such symptoms warrant different evaluations, staged evaluations may also be assigned. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected residuals, facial trauma (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eye lid) The Veteran seeks a higher disability rating for his skin condition. His facial trauma residuals are currently rated as 30 percent from February 20, 2014, under diagnostic code (DC) 7800. During the pendency of this appeal, VA amended the criteria for rating skin disabilities effective from August 13, 2018. However, Diagnostic Code 7800 was not changed by the August 13, 2018 amendments. Pertinent regulations were provided in a February 2017 Statement of the Case (SOC) and will not be repeated in full here. During an August 2015 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with scar in the left upper eye lid, secondary to trauma, and status-post laceration of the right neck. His scars were described as not painful, and the scars were noted as not "painful and unstable," "due to burns," or "unstable with frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar." His left eyelid scar was described as 5 cm x 0.25 cm (partly obscured), and a right neck scar below the right ear as 1cm x 1cm (raised and hypopigmented; surface contour elevated on palpation). His scars were described to be approximate total area with hypo- or hyperpigmented areas of 2.25 cm squared, but there was neither evidence of gross distortion or asymmetry of facial features or visible or palpable tissue loss," nor any pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms associated with any scar or disfigurement. No associated functional impact was found. His treatment records do not otherwise provide pertinent information pertaining to the exact nature/severity of his skin disability. After reviewing all pertinent records, the Board finds that the Veteran's scars do not warrant a rating in excess of 30 percent under DC 7800 throughout the appeal period. At most, the Veteran's scars manifested with two characteristics of disfigurementspecifically, surface contour of scar elevated on palpation and scar at least 0.6 cm wide at widest part. Although there was evidence of hypopigmentation, it was noted to be covering an areas of 2.25 cm sq (ie. less than 39 sq cm), so not meeting one of the characteristics of disfigurement. As there is evidence of only two characteristics of disfigurement, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 30 percent is not warranted. The Board also acknowledges a note to Diagnostic Code 7800, directing that any disabling effects other than disfigurement that are associated with individual scars of the head, face, or neck, such as associated muscle or nerve injury, be separately evaluated under the appropriate diagnostic code. However, there was neither objective nor subjective indication of such that would warrant a separate rating. The Board has also considered the other DCs pertaining to scars. However, the Veteran's scars are located in the head/face/neck and are not painful and unstable. Thus, the Board finds no other DCs applicable in this case. In conclusion, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for these scars. In denying such a rating, the Board finds the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. 2. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches The Veteran's post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches are currently rated at 30 percent from February 20, 2014, under diagnostic code (DC) 8100. Pertinent regulations were provided in a February 2017 SOC and will not be repeated in full here. The Board initially notes that the rating criteria at issue do not define "prostrating," nor has the Court. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 127 (1999) (quoting DC 8100 verbatim and holding evidence established headaches were "prostrating", but not specifically addressing what constitutes a prostrating attack). A prominent medical dictionary defines "prostration" as "extreme exhaustion or powerlessness." See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 1554 (31st Edition 2007). Similarly, the terms "productive of severe economic adaptability" have not been clearly defined by regulations or case law. The Court has noted that "productive of" can either have the meaning of "producing" or "capable of producing." Pierce v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 440, 445 (2004). Headaches need not actually "produce" severe economic inadaptability to warrant the 50 percent rating. Id. at 445-46. "Economic inadaptability" does not mean unemployability, as such would undermine the purpose of regulations pertaining to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. Id. at 446; 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. At a minimum, however, headaches must be capable of producing "severe" economic inadaptability. Recently, the Court issued Holmes v. Wilkie, 2020 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 2131 (Nov. 25, 2020), which held that the criteria for migraine headaches under DC 8100 contemplate all manifestations of that condition, including non-headache symptoms such as dizziness, mood swings, sleep impairment, and nausea. All symptoms experienced as a result of migraine attacks should be considered and rated based on the frequency, severity, and economic impact of the attacks. The Court discussed definitions from medical dictionaries and approved of this approach to determine the meaning of terms in diagnostic codes, although dictionaries or treatises may not be used to make medical determinations. The Court acknowledged that migraines may cause or aggravate a separate disability that could be subject to secondary service connection, such as if a manifestation was constant and not present only during migraine attacks. Additionally, if migraines go beyond economic inadaptability and lead to inability to secure substantially gainful employment, a TDIU remains an option. Finally, if the symptoms present an exceptional case with symptoms more severe, frequent or long-lasting that what is contemplated by DC 8100, then the symptoms may warrant consideration of an extraschedular rating under § 3.321. Id. at *10-15. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2015, during which time he was diagnosed with migraines including migraine variants. The Veteran reported taking various medications for his headaches and described his symptom as "someone sticking a pin into the head." He reported symptoms of nausea and headaches (less than 1 day, left side of head). He was noted to have prostrating attacks of headache pain, occurring once every month, but he was not found to present very prostrating and prolonged attacks of migraines/non-migraine pain productive of severe economic inadaptability. As for functional impact, the examiner indicated that the Veteran's headaches condition did not affect his ability to work full time between 1982 through 2004 (when he was with the Reserves and when his service was activated in 2003), and noted per the Veteran's report that he took about 3-4 days off due to headaches during the 10-11 months that he last worked (at the commissary at an Air Force base). The examiner added a remark that the "headaches do seem to have affected his ability to work, [but] to a mild degree at best." His treatment records only list mediations provided for migraines (see March 2017 VA treatment records, sumatriptan succinate, take at first sign of migraine attacks one tablet as needed; not to exceed 2 tablets in 24 hours) and either occasional complaint or assessment of headaches (ie. "reports history of migraines since 1982, see September 2016 VA treatment records; "complains of headaches and then went on to say migraines, when we asked about sumatriptan, he changes the subject as if never mentioned headaches," see November 2014 VA treatment records). However, none of his treatment records seem to provide either objective or subjective evidence describing the exact frequency/severity of such migraine symptoms/conditioneither with or without such treatment/medications. After reviewing all pertinent records, the Board finds that the Veteran's post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches condition does not warrant a rating in excess of 30 percent under DC 8100 throughout the appeal period. Even taking into consideration the Veteran's report made during the examination that he took about 3-4 days off from work due to headaches during his 10-11 month period of full-time work at the Air Force base, and the examiner's remarks that his headaches do seem to have affected his ability to work to a mild degree at best, the Board points out that he was still found to present prostrating attacks of headache pain occurring only once every month, with no evidence of very prostrating and prolonged attacks of migraines/non-migraine pain productive of severe economic inadaptability. Moreover, even considering all manifestations of his headaches condition per Holmes, the only additional symptom that he reported was nausea (which he did not describe the severity or the frequency). The Board also considered whether the Veteran's symptoms would more closely approximate the criteria for any higher rating in light of Jones v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56, 63 (2012) (holding that the Board may not deny entitlement to a higher evaluation based on relief provided by medication when the effects of medication are not specifically contemplated by the rating schedule) as DC 8100 does not mention the effects of medication, but still finds that a higher rating is unwarranted. Although there are voluminous treatment records (which, as noted, include his medications provided for his headaches condition), it does not appear that the Veteran also complained of his migraines condition occurring in such severity/frequency amounting to the level of capable of producing "severe" economic inadaptabilityeven considering ameliorative effects. Thus, his claim is denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. 3. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected traumatic deviated nasal septum with scar, previously rated as residuals, nose injury The Veteran seeks a higher rating for his deviated nasal septum with scar. He is currently rated as 10 percent from February 27, 2012, under diagnostic code (DC) 6502, which is the highest schedular rating available under this DC. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2015, during which time he was diagnosed with traumatic deviated nasal septum. The Veteran was noted to require Flonase BID for difficulty breathing, especially at night. There was evidence of at least 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to traumatic septal deviation, but there was no evidence of "complete obstruction of the left/right side due to traumatic septal deviation." There was no evidence of "loss of part of the nose or other scars causing loss of part of one ala," "loss of part of the nose or other scars of the nose exposing both nasal passages," or "loss of part of the nose or other scars causing other obvious disfigurement" and there was no evidence of "pulmonary function testing to assess for upper airway obstruction due to laryngeal stenosis." As for functional impact, he was found to have difficulty breathing, especially at night, causing decreased productivity in the workplace. His treatment records only list deviated nasal septum as one of the active problems and use of nasal spray for his nasal dryness. As noted above, the Veteran is already assigned a 10 percent rating for traumatic deviated nasal septum disability, which is the maximum schedular rating available under Diagnostic Code 6502, "septum, nasal, deviation of." As the Veteran is already assigned the maximum schedular rating under DC 6502, the Board finds that entitlement to an increased rating under that code is not warranted as a matter of law. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). The Board has also considered whether the Veteran would be entitled to higher ratings under any other diagnostic code. However, the Board finds that the Veteran's nasal septum disability is most appropriately rated under Diagnostic Code 6502 (best reflects the Veteran's predominant disability), which specifically contemplates "septum, nasal, deviation of." Entitlement to a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 6504, nose, loss of part of, or scars, is not shown because no loss of part of the nose exposing both nasal passages is shown (30 percent rating). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97. The Veteran has not contended, and the evidence does not suggest, that he has experienced symptoms outside of those listed in the schedular criteria. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (Board is not obligated to analyze whether referral for extraschedular consideration is warranted if 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (b)(1) is neither specifically sought by the claimant nor reasonably raised by the facts found by the Board). In summary, the Board finds that entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for deformity of the nasal septum disability is denied and finds the benefit of the doubt doctrine not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. 4. The reduction of the 70 percent disability rating to 30 percent under Diagnostic Code 9411, effective August 26, 2015, for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine, was improper, and restoration of the prior rating is granted. Where the RO proposes to reduce a currently assigned evaluation and the lower evaluation would result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments currently being made, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). Further, the beneficiary must be notified of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefore, and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). The beneficiary must also be notified that he has an opportunity for a predetermination hearing, provided that a request for such a hearing is received by VA within 30 days. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(i). Unless a hearing is requested, if additional evidence is not received within the 60-day period, final rating action will be taken, and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the final rating action expires. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims consistently has held that when the RO reduces a veteran's disability rating without following the applicable regulations, the reduction is void ab initio. See Greyzck v. West, 12 Vet. App. 288, 292 (1999). Although a remand for compliance with the law normally would be an adequate remedy, in a rating reduction case, the erroneous reduction must be vacated and the prior rating must be restored. Schafrath, 1 Vet. App. at 595. In this case, in the September 2015 rating decision, RO reduced the Veteran's disability rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine from 70 percent to 30 percent effective August 26, 2015. However, the RO failed to comply with the notice procedures under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 prior to reducing the rating and also failed to issue a rating decision proposing reduction prior to effectuating the reduction. The RO indicated due process was not required as the Veteran's benefits were not changing, but that was blatantly incorrect. As a result of the reduction, his combined rating decreased from 90 percent to 80 percent. Thus, the September 2015 rating decision's reduction of the Veteran's disability rating for his service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine from 70 percent to 30 percent, effective August 26, 2015, was improper. Accordingly, the reduction is void ab initio and vacated, and the prior rating is restored effective August 26, 2015. 5. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 70 percent from August 26, 2015 for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine is denied. The Veteran's 70 percent rating having been restored, the remaining issue before the Board is his claim for a higher rating. He claims that he has been hospitalized for his mental health condition and warrants a higher rating. Pertinent regulations were provided to the Veteran in a February 2017 Statement of the Case and will not be repeated here. The Veteran underwent a VA psychiatric examination in August 2015, during which time he was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance dependence, adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotion and conduct (while the last diagnosis was not found to be service-connected, but instead, associated with his disagreement with his family members, it was also noted that there is a substantial overlap in symptoms). The examiner described the Veteran's psychiatric condition as "occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation." The examiner noted that the Veteran has had 2-3 psychiatric admissions for issues related to suicidal thoughts (although has not had any attempts) and drug/alcohol use. He was found to manifest symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, and chronic sleep impairment. Upon behavioral observation, he was noted to be alert/oriented with "depressed/angry" mood and restricted affect, present clear speech that is of normal rate and volume, present organized/goal-directed thoughts, and the ability to engage in abstract thinking. He was also found to be capable of handling his financial affairs. During a December 2016 DBQ psychiatric examination, he was diagnosed with PTSD, other substance use disorder (noted to be less likely than not secondary to PTSD), and unspecified depressive disorder. With regards to his symptoms, after indicating that it is possible to differentiate what symptoms are attributable to each diagnosis, the examiner attributed recurrent dreams, intrusive memories, emotional and physiological distress in response to traumatic reminders, negative cognitive alterations and moods, avoidance behavior, exaggerated startle response, sleep impairment, difficulty dealing with stressful situations, reduced concentration/associated memory problems to PTSD; negative moods, social isolation, and difficulty dealing with stressful situations to depressive disorder; and the past alcohol and cocaine abuse to substance use disorder in remission. The examiner described the Veteran's psychiatric condition as "occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity," and described his symptoms as depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions or recent events)however, he was not found to present memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. As for behavioral observations, he was noted to be appropriately dressed/groomed with constricted/dysthymic mood, and he denied suicidal or homicidal ideation. He was also found to be appropriately oriented to person/place/time/date/purpose of visit and present generally rational and linear thoughts. The examiner also indicated that he is capable of managing his financial affairs. Regarding functional impairments, the examiner listed the Veteran's endorsement of irritability, social avoidance, which presumably would interfere with his ability to work collaboratively with others in the workplace setting; sleep impairment, reduced concentration, memory difficulties, reduced motivation to engage in activities of daily living and difficulty adjusting to stressful situations, which presumably would reduce the efficiency with which he would be able to engage in the physical/sedentary activities of employment; and daily headaches associated with the TBI presumably reduce the efficiency with which he would be able to engage in the physical and sedentary activities of employment. His treatment records consistently show logical thought content/thought form, normal speech rate/rhythm, oriented cognition, and denial of homicidal or suicidal ideation (ie. no evidence of persistent danger of hurting self or others) or delusions/psychotic symptoms. See November 2014, October 2015, September 2017 VA treatment records. Even when he was found to have poor insight/judgment, he was still found to have linear and goal-oriented thought process, regular speech, grossly intact cognition, aware of place/person/purpose, and denied any symptoms of delusion/suicidal or homicidal ideation. See April 2017 VA treatment records. After reviewing all pertinent records, the Board finds that the Veteran does not warrant a rating in excess of 70 percent throughout the appeal period. While the Veteran was found to manifest mild memory losssuch as forgetting names, directions or recent eventsduring the January 2017 VA examination, he was still explicitly not found to present memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name during that time, and contemporaneous treatment records also consistently show his intact or oriented cognition. See April 2017 and September 2017 VA treatment records. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Veteran ever exhibited symptoms comparable to gross impairment in thought processes or communication (found to present either linear and goal-oriented thought process, or logical thought content/thought form); persistent delusions (he consistently denied such); grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others (he explicitly consistently denied any suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation, intent or plan); intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living. Thus, his symptoms do not rise to the level of total occupational and social impairment of a 100 percent rating. In summary, the Veteran's symptoms most closely approximately that of 70 percent. As the evidence preponderates against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule has no application. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56; 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017). 6. Entitlement to a temporary total rating for hospitalization for service-connected psychiatric condition The Veteran seeks a temporary total rating for hospitalization for his service-connected psychiatric condition. He claims that he had treatment for PTSD at the WLA domiciliary beginning September 6, 2016 and that he was hospitalized until January 2017. See October 2016 VA 21-4138 form; VA form 9. A total disability rating (100 percent) will be assigned without regard to other provisions of the rating schedule when it is established that a service-connected disability has required hospital treatment in a VA or an approved hospital for a period in excess of 21 days or hospital observation at VA expense for a service-connected disability for a period in excess of 21 days. 38 C.F.R. § 4.29. September 2016 domiciliary note shows that the Veteran signed up for the domiciliary residential rehabilitation and treatment program. The domiciliary note dated January 1, 2017 documents the Veteran's report made over the phone that he will not be able to make it back to the dormitory as he had missed the train and the staff member acknowledging "he will be carried as on pass since he did inform staff of his situation and will be referred to his team upon his return," and the domiciliary note dated January 4, 2017 shows that the Veteran was informed of being discharged for taking a pass that was denied over the holiday weekend and for testing positive for cocaine. Domiciliary discharge note dated January 6, 2017, provides that he was admitted for homelessness, substance abuse and mental health treatment as of September 6, 2016, and was discharged on January 6, 2017 for being marked AWOL. Even though there may have been other co-existing reasons for his domiciliary admittance, such as housing or financial issues, the fact is he also underwent psychiatric assessments to address his PTSD and did engage in treatment for his service-connected psychiatric condition, as it was noted he "regularly attended ABC cognitive behavioral therapy group and PTSD and was provided emotional support," see January 2017 discharge summary; see domiciliary note dated December 30, 2016. The Board finds that the Veteran warrants a 100 percent rating from September 6, 2016 to January 6, 2017. The Veteran is advised that since he is already rated at 100 percent based on unemployability beginning October 12, 2016, the conclusion he was entitled to a temporary total rating while hospitalized will not result in any additional benefit for the time period where he is already receiving a total rating. 7. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected traumatic brain injury (TBI) The Veteran seeks a higher rating for his TBI condition. His TBI is currently rated as 30 percent under diagnostic code (DC) 8045 from August 17, 2010. Pertinent regulations were provided in a February 2017 SOC and will not be repeated in full here. In an August 2015 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with TBI and migraine headaches attributable to TBI. He reported headaches and problems with concentration/attention. He complained of impairment of memory (forgetting things easily), but the examiner indicated there being no objective evidence of memory problems on a cognitive screen using MOCA. His judgment was normal, social interaction was occasionally inappropriate (but this was noted to be more likely due to his PTSD). He was noted to be "always oriented to person/time/place/situation," present "normal visual spatial orientation," "normal motor activity," and subjective symptoms of "some headaches and anxiety" (but these headaches and anxiety symptoms were noted to be more likely related to his PTSD). As for neurobehavioral effects, the examiner indicated "one or more neurobehavioral effects that do not interfere with workplace/social interaction"the examiner further described the Veteran's report of some irritability, which the Veteran attributed to his conflict with his brothers, rather than to TBI, and the examiner noted that such symptom might also be due to his alcohol/drug use. He was also noted to present normal consciousness, have capacity to communicate by spoken/written language and comprehend spoken/written language. Residuals of headaches and mental disorder were identified, and his neuropsychological testing showed score of 27/30 on Montreal cognitive assessment (a score of 26 or more is considered normal; no objective evidence of cognitive problems), and CT head showed normal. As for functional impact, TBI itself was not found to affect his ability to work. In a December 2016 disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with TBI and headaches. As for the assessment of cognitive impairment, the examiner indicated "a complaint of mild memory loss, attention, concentration, or executive functions, but without objective evidence on testing"and added the Veteran's endorsement of some difficulties with forgetfulness (such as scheduled appointments). The examiner noted the Veteran's performance on task of auditory short-term memory for words as 3/5, 4/5, and 3/5 (trial 1, trial 2, delayed trial), task of auditory short-term working memory for digits as 5/5 and 3/3 items correct, performance on a task of serial &'s (counting backwards from 100 by 7) as 6/6 items correct, abstract verbal reasoning through description of a common idiom as within the normal limits; he was also noted to be appropriately oriented to person/place/time/date/purpose for visit, nearly dressed and groomed, with pragmatic language skills appearing to be within normal limits, MSE findings showing intact memory abilities. The examiner further explained that the Veteran's inconsistent performance on the auditory short-term memory for words in comparison with the other short-term working memory tasks is considered to be likely attributed to concentration difficulties secondary to psychological conditions versus an indication of cognitive impairment secondary to TBI (listing evidence of TBI causing headaches and pain causing distraction and difficulty retaining new information and completing tasks, gets easily disoriented; vertigo; impaired concentration and cognitive acuity during headaches). His judgement was found to be normal, social interaction routinely appropriate, orientation always oriented to person/time/place/situation, motor activity normal, visual spatial orientation normal, subjective symptoms that do not interfere with work/instrumental activities of daily living (intermittent dizziness, daily mild to moderate headaches, tinnitus, frequent insomnia, hypersensitivity to sound, hypersensitivity to light; reported daily headaches). There were also no neurobehavioral effects, and he was found to be able to communicate by spoken and written language and comprehend spoken and written language. His consciousness was normal, and residuals of headaches. CT was found normal. His functional impairment was found as headaches interfering with his ability to concentrate, which reportedly reduces the efficiency with which he is able to engage in the physical/sedentary activities of daily living. At the outset, it is noteworthy that the Veteran is separately assigned 70 percent for his psychiatric condition (inclusive of symptoms of chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, anxiety), 10 percent for recurrent tinnitus, and 30 percent for post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches (as secondary to TBI) condition (inclusive of symptoms of nausea and headaches/headaches pain). Considering all the signs and symptoms of the residuals of TBI, the Board finds the headaches are more appropriately rated under DC 8100, psychiatric conditions under DC 9411, and tinnitus under DC 6260, throughout the period on appeal, and thus, finds that the Veteran does not warrant any separate compensable ratings for these aforementioned conditions/symptoms. Accordingly, the analysis proceeds to whether the Veteran has presented 3 or more subjective symptoms of TBI productive of more than mild cognitive impairment throughout the appeal period. The preponderance of the competent (medical) evidence is against a finding that he has more than mild cognitive impairment as a residual of TBI. Even though the Veteran reported forgetting things easily, the examiner indicated no objective evidence of memory problem on a cognitive screen using MOCA, and the inconsistencies in his performance on the auditory short-term memory for words compared to those of the other short-term working memory tests were attributed to his service-connected psychiatric condition (rather than to his cognitive problems associated with TBI). He was consistently found to have a "complaint of mild memory loss, attention, concentration, or executive functions, but without objective evidence on testing" throughout the TBI examinations. HIs subjective TBI residual symptoms were reported on VA examinations (described above) as daily mild to moderate headaches, hypersensitivity to sound/light, and irritability (as for irritability, the Veteran attributed to his conflict with his brothers, and the examiner noted this to be more likely due to his alcohol/drug use). As he had not reported motor or sensory dysfunction, loss of sense of smell and taste; seizures; speech and other communication difficulties, including aphasia and related disorders, and dysarthria; neurogenic bladder; neurogenic bowel; cranial nerve dysfunctions; autonomic nerve dysfunctions; or endocrine dysfunctions, additional separate ratings for residuals of TBI were not warranted. The Veteran's TBI residuals have been assigned a 10 percent rating from August 17, 2010, on the basis that the greatest number assigned to any facet of TBI impairment is 1. The Veteran's TBI disability, at worst, manifested in mild impairment of memory, attention, concentration, and executive functioning (but without objective evidence of impairment on testing); and even when an additional finding of occasionally inappropriate social interaction was noted (see August 2015 VA TBI examination), the examiner at the time pointed out that such is more likely due to his separately evaluated service-connected psychiatric condition. The level of severity of each of these facets warrants a 1, under the table for evaluating residuals of TBI. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Code 8045. There is no evidence or allegation that the Veteran's TBI manifested in impaired judgment (judgment has consistently been normal on examination); disorientation (the Veteran was always oriented to all spheres); impaired motor activity (none reported); impaired visual spatial orientation (none reported); neurobehavioral effects that interfere with workplace or social interaction (none reported); impaired communication (communication has consistently been normal on examination); or impaired consciousness. The level of severity of each of these facets warrants a 0, as designated by the table for evaluating residuals of TBI. The table specifies that the rating assigned shall reflect the highest number assigned for any factor. The numbers are not added. A level 1 severity warrants a 10 percent rating. Consequently, a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's residuals TBI throughout the appeal period is not warranted. The Board has considered the Veteran's subjective complaints regarding his symptoms, to include his headaches. However (as discussed above), other manifestations do not support that additional separate or higher ratings are warranted. Earlier Effective Date 8. Entitlement to an effective date prior to February 20, 2014 for the 30 percent evaluation for service-connected residuals, facial trauma (laceration right neck and injury to left upper eyelid) The Veteran is seeking entitlement to an effective date prior to February 20, 2014, for the assignment of a 30 percent evaluation for service-connected residuals of facial trauma. He filed his initial claim for service connection for this disability in April 2007. Service connection was granted in an October 2011 rating decision and a noncompensable rating was established effective April 4, 2007, the date his original claim was received. The Veteran did not file a notice of disagreement or new and material evidence within the appropriate period and the decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104 (a), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. On February 20, 2014, the Veteran filed a claim for an increased rating for this disability. A 30 percent rating was granted in September 2015, effective February 20, 2014, and the present appeal stems from that rating decision. Under 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a), the effective date of an increase in a Veteran's disability compensation shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(2) provides an exception to this general rule: "The effective date of an award of increased compensation shall be the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if application is received within one year from such date." Thus, "the plain language of [section] 5110(b)(2) [...] only permits an earlier effective date for increased disability compensation if that disability increased during the one-year period before the filing of the claim." Thus, three possible dates may be assigned depending on the facts of an increased rating earlier effective date case: (1) If an increase in disability occurs after the claim is filed, the date that the increase is shown to have occurred (date entitlement arose) (38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(1)); (2) If an increase in disability precedes the claim by a year or less, the date that the increase is shown to have occurred (factually ascertainable) (38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(2)); or (3) If an increase in disability precedes the claim by more than a year, the date that the claim is received (date of claim) (38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(2)). See Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982-84 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125, 126 (1997). "Claim" is defined broadly to include a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (p); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 199 (1992). In this case, the Board finds no evidence that the Veteran submitted an increased rating claim prior to February 20, 2014. The Veteran submitted a VA 21-4138 form on February 20, 2014, and he has not asserted he initiated any claim prior to February 2014. He asserts he should get "back pay" from when he submitted the initial claim in 2009. However, as noted above, he did not disagree with the 2011 rating decision that granted service connection for this condition and assigned the initial rating. As February 20, 2014, is, therefore, the date of receipt of this claim, the Board must determine whether there is evidence of record within the year prior to February 20, 2014, demonstrating that the Veteran's disability met the criteria for a 30 percent evaluation. Upon review of the file, the Board finds there is no medical evidence of record prior to February 20, 2014, reflecting that the Veteran's skin disability met the objective findings set forth under the rating criteria so as to establish entitlement to a 30 percent rating prior to February 20, 2014. The Veteran's VA medical records from October 2011 to February 2014 are associated with the claims file and are negative for skin disability with two or three characteristics of disfigurement. His treatment records merely document outpatient medications for "skin disorder" or "to affected areas every day for dryness" without clarifying which portion of his skin nor elaborating the nature or severity of his skin condition. An earlier effective date is therefore unwarranted on that basis. 9. Entitlement to an effective date prior to February 20, 2014 for the 30 percent evaluation for service-connected post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches The Veteran seeks an earlier effective date for a disability rating of 30 percent prior to February 20, 2014, for his service-connected traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches. He filed his initial informal claim on August 17, 2010. Service connection for post-traumatic left hemicephalia was granted in an October 2011 rating decision and a 10 percent rating was established effective August 17, 2010, the date his original claim was received. The Veteran did not file a notice of disagreement or new and material evidence within the appropriate period and the decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104 (a), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. He filed his initial claim for service connection for TBI on February 27, 2012. Service connection for headaches, as secondary to service-connected TBI, was granted in a May 2012 rating decision and a noncompensable rating was established effective February 27, 2012, the date his original claim was received. The Veteran did not file a notice of disagreement or new and material evidence within the appropriate period and the decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104 (a), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. On February 20, 2014, the Veteran filed a claim for an increased rating for "all current service-connected disabilities" (VA 21-4138 form). A 30 percent rating was granted for post-traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches (previously rated separately) in September 2015, effective February 20, 2014, and the present appeal stems from that rating decision. After reviewing the lay and medical evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran's February 2014 increased rating claim is the earliest communication received after the final October 2011 and May 2012 rating decisions that can be construed as a formal or informal claim for an increased rating, and the Veteran has not argued otherwise. He asserts he should get "back pay" from when he submitted the initial claim in 2009 or from 2011. However, as noted above, he did not disagree with the 2011 or 2012 rating decisions. Because February 20, 2014 is the date of receipt of this claim, the Board must determine whether there is evidence of record within the year prior to February 20, 2014, demonstrating that the Veteran's disability met the criteria for a 30 percent evaluation. In this case, the Board finds no medical evidence of record prior to February 20, 2014, suggesting that the Veteran's headache disability met the objective findings set forth under the rating criteria so as to establish entitlement to a 30 percent rating prior to February 20, 2014. Indeed, the Veteran did not file any documents from October 2011/May 2012 to February 2014. Thus, to obtain an increased rating earlier than the date of the claim, the evidence must show that the disability increased within the one-year period prior to the date of the claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(2). For instance, May 2012 VA treatment records indicates "head: frequent headaches" and November 2013 VA treatment records includes the Veteran's report of "worsening tension headaches," but do not otherwise provide any information relating to its exact frequency or severity, and there is neither objective nor subjective evidence showing that such headaches are of such nature/severity that are capable of producing severe economic inadaptability. In short, the Board finds there is no medical evidence of record prior to February 20, 2014, reflecting that the Veteran's his service-connected traumatic left hemicephalia/headaches met the objective findings set forth under the rating criteria so as to establish entitlement to a 30 percent rating prior to February 20, 2014. As such, the Board finds that an effective date prior to February 20, 2014, for the grant of an increased rating of 30 percent is not warranted. As the evidence preponderates against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule has no application. REASON FOR REMAND 10. Earlier effective date of TDIU prior to October 12, 2016 In a January 2017 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to a TDIU, effective October 12, 2016. While the Veteran did not file a Notice of Disagreement challenging the effective date for TDIU, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU prior to October 12, 2016 is still pending, in conjunction with the claim for increased rating of service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with depressive disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol and cocaine currently on appeal. See Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018) (holding that once entitlement to a TDIU is put in issue as part of a claim for a higher initial rating/increased rating and the RO grants a TDIU that does not span the entire period on appeal, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU for an earlier period is still on appeal). Nonetheless, the Board finds remand required for the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), as the RO has yet addressed this question. It would be potentially prejudicial to the Veteran if the Board were to address it in the first instance. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: The RO should furnish the appellant with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) for the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date of TDIU prior to October 12, 2016. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Lee, Catherine 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.