Citation Nr: 21071622 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 17-36 095 DATE: December 1, 2021 ORDER Service connection for the residuals of a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is denied. REMANDED A total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not sustain a TBI during a period of service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection of the residuals of a TBI have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304; 3.307; 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from May 1975 to May 1978. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) made in December 2016 and January 2017. This appeal is being adjudicated under the legacy appellate framework. The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in September 2020, and a transcript of the hearing is of record. These matters were previously before the Board, and, in February 2021, the Board remanded these matters for further development. Further development in substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand instructions has been completed. The Board notes that the February 2021 Board decision also remanded the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder for further development. The Veteran was granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder in September 2021. This is considered a full grant of the Veteran's prayer of relief, and the Board shall not address this matter any further. Service connection for the residuals of a TBI is denied. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for the residuals of a TBI. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection. In seeking VA disability compensation, a Veteran generally seeks to establish that a current disability results from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. "Service connection" basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Furthermore, service connection can be established through application of statutory presumptions, including for chronic diseases like diseases of the nervous system, when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran submitted an opinion and an addendum opinion completed between January and June 2020 by a private provider. In the original opinion, the private provider diagnosed the Veteran with major depressive disorder, unspecified obsessive-compulsive disorder, and somatic symptom disorder and opined that the Veteran's symptoms were related to service. In the addendum opinion, the private provider further clarified that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was due to head trauma and corresponding concussive symptoms during a period of service. The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in September 2020 that he injured his head during his period of service and that this had caused mental symptoms. See Transcript. Both the original opinion and the addendum opinion leave much to be desired. First, it is unclear whether or not the Veteran has a neurological condition, a psychological condition, or both; to say nothing of what clinical evidence is being relied on to make such a determination. Black v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 177 (1995). Additionally, the opinion is noticeably silent on what principles and methods were used to determine that the Veteran's symptoms were attributable to a concussion rather than some other etiology. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake. Finally, the Veteran's private provider is a psychologist (rather than a neurologist). Accordingly, the Board sought the opinion of a specialist in a particular field related to the claimed condition. Winsett v. West, 11 Vet. App. 420 (1998). The Veteran underwent another VA examination in August 2021, and the examiner, a specialist, opined that the Veteran had not sustained a TBI. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection for a TBI. The Veteran was evaluated by a specialist who indicated that the Veteran had not sustained a TBI. The Board affords this opinion great weight, and, unfortunately, the criteria for service connection have not been met. Here, the weight of the probative evidence of record simply fails to demonstrate that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for the residuals of a TBI. Therefore, the evidence in this case is not so evenly balanced so as to allow application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule as required by law and VA regulations. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, service connection for the residuals of a TBI is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND TDIU is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to TDIU. Unfortunately, the evidence of record is not sufficient to demonstrate whether or not the Veteran's previously service-connected disabilities prevent the Veteran from securing and maintaining substantially gainful employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. The evidence of record is sufficient to trigger VA's duty to assist, and this matter must be remanded for an examination in order to provide the Veteran with a VA examination to address this concern. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to address the following: (a.) Comment on the Veteran's ability to function in an occupational environment. (b.) Document the Veteran's reported education and work experience. (c.) Describe any functional and occupational impairment caused by the Veteran's service-connected disabilities. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board David R. Seaton, 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.