Citation Nr: 21070786 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 15-09 945 DATE: November 26, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1968 to November 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2012 rating decision of the Department of a Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which, in pertinent part, denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran timely perfected an appeal. See December 2012 Notice of Disagreement; February 2015 Statement of the Case; March 2015 VA Form 9. In April 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, a transcript of which is of record. In September 2018, the Board remanded this matter for further development. Specifically, the Board noted that the Veteran raised the issues of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, a psychiatric disorder, and a heart condition during the April 2018 Board hearing and that he specifically asserted that he was unable to work due to these claimed disabilities. The Board further indicated that the Veteran's representative requested a referral of these issues to the local Regional Office (RO). Accordingly, the Board referred those issues to the RO for consideration as a petition to reopen the claims of service connection for a lumbar spine disability, a psychiatric disorder, and a heart condition. In the September 2018 remand, the Board specified that the referred issues of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition, a psychiatric disorder, and a heart condition were inextricably intertwined with the Veteran's TDIU claim. The AOJ was directed to undertake appropriate action on those issues prior to readjudicating the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. A review of the record shows that the AOJ did not take any further action on the referred claims before readjudicating the Veteran's TDIU claim in a June 2020 supplemental statement of the case. While the Board acknowledges that effective March 24, 2015, a claim for benefits must be submitted on a VA standardized form, the Board also notes that the AOJ did not make any attempt to develop the referred issues, such as asking the Veteran to submit the claims on a standardized form. This lack of substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directives requires another remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Pursuant to the Board's September 2018 remand instructions, in August 2019, VA furnished the Veteran with a notice letter and requested that he complete VA Form 21-8940, Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. The Veteran did not provide the requested information. In light of the fact that the claim is being remanded, the Board will provide the Veteran with one more opportunity to submit the required information. The Board notes that while VA has a statutory duty to assist in developing evidence pertinent to a claim, the Veteran also has a duty to assist and cooperate with VA in developing evidence, and the duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request a properly executed VA Form 21-8940, Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. 2. Undertake appropriate actions to adjudicate the referred issues of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition, a psychiatric disorder, and a heart condition, to possibly include requesting that the Veteran submit any such claims on a standardized form, or any other development deemed necessary. 3. Only after appropriate action has been undertaken on the referred issues of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition, a psychiatric disorder, and a heart condition, readjudicate the Veteran's claim of entitlement to a TDIU. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Kipper, 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.