Citation Nr: 21071502 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 14-19 101 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED The matter of entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty from June 1984 to December 1991. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2012 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2016 and March 2021, the Board remanded the remaining TDIU issue to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further evidentiary development. The Board disposed of additional claims in the April 2016 and March 2021 decisions. Entitlement to a TDIU In the March 2021 remand, the Board noted that the Veteran had reported receiving income from various sources during the pertinent appeal period and that he had qualified for Vocational Rehabilitation and Education (VR&E) assistance in January 2013. In his application materials, he reported having two separate jobs for two different companies with an average monthly salary of $4000 from March 2009 to October 2012, while working full timeand also having an average gross monthly salary of $2800 from March 2012 to December 2013, while working full time on a contract or temporary assignment. In remanding this claim, the Board specifically noted that the record included an income statement from the Social Security Administration which appeared incomplete, as it did not list all of the companies or jobs reported by the Veteran in his VR&E application process. At this point, the Board further notes that, while the statement indicates various amounts of income from various sources, it does not reflect his dates of employment or his income during any specific time period. Based on the deficiencies in the record, the Board remanded the TDIU claim to accord the AOJ an opportunity to request complete income statements from the SSA and to determine at what point(s) he had substantially gainful income during the pertinent appeal period. In spite of the Board's instructions, the AOJ only obtained a Disability Determination Explanation from the SSA, which only included the Veteran's reported employment history. This history adds further confusion to this matter, as it indicates that the Veteran's last employment consisted of working as a technician for a temporary staffing agency, from January 2012 to May 2013, not through December 2013, as previously reported. The AOJ, however, did not obtain the Veteran's income statements as the Board directed. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (a remand by the Board confers on a claimant a legal right to compliance with the remand order). Accordingly, the Board observes that the evidence is still unclear with respect to whether the Veteran was unable to secure or follow substantially gainful income for any portion of the pertinent appeal period. Thus, to afford the Veteran every possible consideration, remand is required for the AOJ to obtain his Social Security income statements for the relevant appeal period. Also, while this matter is on remand, he should be asked to provide specific evidence of his income during the relevant appeal period. Accordingly, this matter is hereby REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran with VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information, and request that he obtain a completed employment information form from each of his employers during the pertinent appeal period. Also, request that the Veteran provide any information concerning his earnings during the pertinent appeal period, to include a copy of any annual Social Security Administration earnings reports in his possession. 2. Obtain the Veteran's annual income statements for each year of the pertinent appeal period from the SSA. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring that the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). He is also advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Wilson, 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.