Citation Nr: 21075162 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 14-10 691A DATE: December 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1984 to July 1994, with four months and 11 days of prior active service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2010 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which pertained to an increased rating for the service-connected pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB). At a September 2020 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he had to take early retirement because he could not shave and wear a N95 mask at work. Since entitlement to TDIU is not a separate claim for benefits, but rather involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability or disabilities, it can be part of the initial adjudication of a claim for increase. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453 (2009). Thus, the TDIU claim is part of the increased rating claim for a skin disability. This matter was previously remanded by the Board in May 2021 for further development. Thereafter, an August 2021 rating decision and supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) addressed the issue of TDIU. 1. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. Pursuant to the May 2021 Board remand, the Veteran was requested to fill out a formal application for his claim for TDIU. In September 2021, he submitted his formal application for TDIU and indicated that he last worked for the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Pensacola, Florida and that he expected to receive disability retirement benefits. The RO sent a letter to the Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola requesting the employer to complete VA Form 21-4192. To date, a response has not been received. Given that the RO made only a single attempt to obtain the Veteran's employment information and the fact that the Veteran's employment records are in the custody of the federal government, remand is required to again obtain these records. Updated treatment records should also be obtained upon remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his claimed disabilities. After securing any necessary releases, the AOJ should request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran and his representative should be notified of such. 2. Request the Veteran provide authorization and/or release for his Department of Justice federal employment records. After authorization by the Veteran, contact the Department of Justice, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and/or any other appropriate records depository and request the Veteran's federal employment records regarding the reasons for and circumstances of his August 2020 separation from federal service, to include any and all administrative or medical records, e.g., formal or informal reprimands, counseling records, disciplinary records, performance evaluations, and leave records (e.g., leave statements and Family and Medical Leave Act [FMLA] leave records). All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran and his representative must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Medina 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.