Citation Nr: 21076618 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-29 181 DATE: December 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for hypertension with transient dizziness is denied. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to January 30, 2016, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's PTSD has not been productive of total occupational and social impairment. 2. The Veteran's diastolic pressure is not predominantly 110 or more, and his systolic pressure is not predominantly 200 or more. 3. Prior to January 30, 2016, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 2. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for hypertension with transient dizziness have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. 3. The criteria for TDIU prior to January 30, 2016, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1983 to September 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from June 2015 and September 2016 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2017. A transcript is of record. The Board remanded the case for further development in December 2018. That development was completed, and the case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. During the pendency of the appeal, in an April 2020 rating decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) increased the evaluation for the Veteran's PTSD to 70 percent effective from June 6, 2011. Nevertheless, applicable law provides that, when a veteran seeks an increased evaluation, it will generally be presumed that the maximum benefit allowed by law and regulation is sought, and it follows that such a claim remains in controversy where less than the maximum benefit available is awarded. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). Thus, the issue of entitlement to an increased evaluation for PTSD remains on appeal. In addition, in the April 2020 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to TDIU effective from January 30, 2016. The Court has held that, if the grant of 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. Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018). As such, the issue of entitlement to TDIU prior to January 30, 2016, also remains on appeal. The Board further notes that the Veteran's appeal had also included the issues of entitlement to service connection for a thyroid disorder and to a higher initial evaluation for sinusitis. However, in the April 2020 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for a thyroid disorder and increased the evaluation for sinusitis to 50 percent effective from June 6, 2011, which is the maximum schedular rating available for that disability. Therefore, those awards constitute a full grant of benefits sought on appeal, and those issues are no longer in appellate status. Law and Analysis The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist with regard to the issues decided herein. 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) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Increased Evaluation Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the medical history of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § § 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. 8 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). While the regulations require review of the recorded history of a disability by the adjudicator to ensure a more accurate evaluation, the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over the current medical findings. Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). However, where the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial rating assigned, evaluation of the evidence since the effective date of the grant of service connection is required. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). Where VA's adjudication of the claim for increase is lengthy and factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms which would warrant different ratings, different or "staged" ratings may be assigned for such different periods of time. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007); Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126-27. Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). PTSD In this case, the Veteran is currently assigned a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD 70 percent, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. Under Diagnostic Code 9411, a 70 percent rating is warranted when the psychiatric disorder results in occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. A 100 percent rating is warranted when the psychiatric disorder results in total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. The use of the term "such as" in the general rating formula for mental disorders in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve as examples of the type and degree of symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). It is not required to find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms recited for particular ratings. Id. The use of the phrase "such symptoms as," followed by a list of examples, provides guidance as to the severity of symptoms contemplated for each rating, in addition to permitting consideration of other symptoms, particular to each veteran and disorder, and the effect of those symptoms on the claimant's social and work situation. Id. In Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit stated that "a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration." It was further noted that "§ 4.130 requires not only the presence of certain symptoms but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas." In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for his service-connected PTSD. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's PTSD has been productive of total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. A December 2011 VA examiner found that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD that conforms to the DSM-IV criteria, but instead had an anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (NOS). He denied having received treatment from a mental health provider, but noted that he had been seeing his primary care provider and was prescribed medication for approximately one year. Upon examination, the Veteran was found to have anxiety, but there were no other clinical findings or symptoms attributable to his service-connected disability. It was also noted that he was alert and fully oriented and that there was no evidence of memory impairment or psychosis. He also denied any current suicidal or homicidal ideation. A May 2015 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD. He found that the Veteran had a linear, future-oriented thought process with aware and logical associations, and there were no abnormal or psychotic thoughts. His attention, concentration, memory, judgment, and insight were documented as being good, and his speech was clear. The Veteran reported having anger, but indicated that it was controlled and walked away when it occurred. A June 2016 VA examination revealed anxiety, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, chronic sleep impairment, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a worklike setting. It was also noted that the Veteran had clear speech, no reports of violence towards himself or others, a linear and future-oriented thought process, aware and logical associations, no abnormal or psychotic thoughts, and good cognition, memory, attention, concentration, judgment, and insight. A May 2019 VA examination found the Veteran to have anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks more than once a week, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, a flattened affect, impaired judgment, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting, an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships, suicidal ideation, and impaired impulse control, such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence. However, he denied having any suicide attempts or psychiatric hospitalization. The Veteran was also noted as having adequate hygiene and being dressed appropriately for the weather. He was fully oriented with his memory and attention within normal limits. He denied having psychotic experiences, and none were evidenced during the examination. The December 2011 VA examiner found that the Veteran has a mental condition that has been formally diagnosed, but that the symptoms are not severe enough either to interfere with occupational and social functioning or to require continuous medication. Such a finding is commensurate with a noncompensable evaluation. The May 2015 VA examiner stated that he had occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or; symptoms controlled by medication. That degree of impairment correlates to a 10 percent evaluation under the rating criteria. The January 2016 VA examiner noted that the Veteran's PTSD had been variable over the past year, ranging from mild to moderate to mild severity. He concluded that the Veteran had 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. Such a finding corresponds to a 30 percent evaluation. The May 2019 VA examiner later found that he had occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, and/or mood. That level of impairment is commensurate with the currently assigned 70 evaluation under the rating criteria. In addition, the treatment records show that the Veteran has maintained his personal hygiene and has been alert and oriented. See e.g. January 2016, March 2018, and April 2019 treatment records. He did not report any difficulty remembering his address, his own name, or the names of relatives. There is also no documentation of persistent delusions or hallucinations. A December 2016 VA treatment record indicated that he was cognitively intact, and a March 2018 VA treatment record, noted that the Veteran had well-organized reasoning without signs of psychosis or suicidal ideations. In an April 2019 VA treatment record, the Veteran also denied having psychosis and suicidal and homicidal ideations. Moreover, to the extent that any symptoms indicative of a 100 percent evaluation have been shown or argued, the Board emphasizes that the criteria for an evaluation of 100 percent requires both total social and occupational impairment. See Melson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 334 (1991) (use of the conjunctive "and" in a statutory provision meant that all of the conditions listed in the provision must be met); cf. Johnson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 95 (1994) (only one disjunctive "or" requirement must be met in order for an increased rating to be assigned). With regard to social impairment, the Board notes that the Veteran divorced his first wife, has been estranged from his daughter since she was 14 years old due to the divorce, and does not have any close friends. See December 2011, May 2015, and May 2019 VA examination reports. However, he told the December 2011 VA examiner that he had been married to his second wife for four years and described the relationship as fine. He also reported having a good relationship with his son and a positive relationship with his parents. During the May 2015 VA examination, the Veteran again indicated that he had a good relationship with his son and that they talk every few days. He noted that he and his second wife had been married for 7 years and together for 21 years, and he described it as a positive relationship. He further reported that he had a good relationship with his stepdaughter and two grandchildren and has continued relationships with his father and siblings, noting that speaks to his father almost once per week, gets together often with one brother, and sees another brother approximately every other year who lives further away. The Veteran told the June 2016 VA examiner that he preferred not to socialize, but that he remains in contact with his father, son, and siblings and that his grandchildren sometimes visit on the weekends, which he enjoys. A November 2017 medical record further showed that the Veteran was an involved grandparent. In addition, he remained married to his second wife at the time of the May 2019 VA examination and described the relationship as fine. He also remained in contact with his son. Thus, it cannot be said that the Veteran has total social impairment, given his ability to maintain some relationships with family members. With regard to occupational impairment, the Veteran was employed full-time at the time of the December 2011 VA examination. He later reported during the June 2016 VA examination that he had experienced an increase in his panic attacks over the past year when he was working and decided to quit at the end of January 2016. He remained unemployed at the time of the May 2019 VA examination. Nevertheless, to the extent that the Veteran has total occupational impairment due to his PTSD, the fact remains that the Veteran does not have total social impairment. As previously noted, the rating criteria require both total social and occupational impairment to warrant a 100 percent evaluation. After considering the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran's PTSD more closely approximates the criteria for the 70 percent disability rating. The evidence shows that, while the Veteran has had social and occupational impairment, his symptoms did not result in total social and occupational impairment. Overall, the Veteran has not demonstrated a level of impairment consistent with the criteria for a total evaluation. Mauerhan, supra, Vazquez-Claudio, supra. The criteria for a total evaluation have not been met or approximated for the time period on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. Thus, the Board concludes that the weight of the evidence is against a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53. Hypertension The Veteran's hypertension is currently assigned a 10 percent evaluation pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. Under Diagnostic Code 7101, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned for diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more; or, for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control. A 20 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more; or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. A 40 percent rating is contemplated for diastolic pressure predominantly 120 or more. A 60 percent rating is assigned for diastolic pressure predominantly 130 or more. There are three notes to 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. Note (1) provides that hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension must be confirmed by readings taken two or more times on at least three different days. For purposes of this section, the term hypertension means that the diastolic blood pressure (i.e., bottom number) is predominantly 90 mm or greater, and isolated systolic hypertension means the systolic blood pressure (i.e., top number) is predominantly 160 mm or greater with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm. Note (2) requires the evaluation of hypertension due to aortic insufficiency or hyperthyroidism, which is usually the isolated systolic type, as part of the condition causing it rather than by a separate evaluation. Note (3) states that hypertension should be evaluated separately from hypertensive heart disease and other types of heart disease. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for hypertension with transient dizziness is not warranted. The evidence of record, including Veteran's own reports, treatment records, and VA examination reports, do not show that he has diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. During an August 2011 VA examination, the Veteran's blood pressure readings were recorded as 180/111, 157/100, and 168/94, and a June 2016 VA examination report documented blood pressure readings of 183/92, 150/102, 164/100. Moreover, an April 2017 VA treatment record specifically stated that none of his diastolic readings were above 110 or systolic readings above 200 from 2015 to 2017. A May 2019 VA examination also revealed blood pressure readings of 168/90, 168/88, and 166/86 with an average of 168/88. The Board does note that the August 2011 VA examination report noted one diastolic reading of 111, but the two other readings were 100 and 94. Similarly, in May 2017, the Veteran's systolic pressure was recorded as 205, yet another reading was that same day was 196. As such, such measurements do not show that the Veteran's diastolic pressure is predominantly 110 or more or that his systolic pressure is predominantly 200 or more. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran has not met the criteria for an increased evaluation for hypertension. In reaching this decision, the potential application of various provisions of Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations have been considered, whether or not they were raised by the Veteran. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991); Barringer v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 242, 243-44 (2008). In particular, the Board has considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). However, in this case, the Board finds that the record does not show that the Veteran's hypertension is so exceptional or unusual as to warrant the assignment of a higher rating on an extraschedular basis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). The threshold factor for extraschedular consideration is a finding that the evidence before VA presents such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular evaluations for that service-connected disability are inadequate. See Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111(2008). In this regard, there must be a comparison between the level of severity and symptomatology of the claimant's service- connected disability with the established criteria found in the rating schedule for that disability. If the criteria reasonably describe the claimant's disability level and symptomatology, then the claimant's disability picture is contemplated by the rating schedule and the assigned schedular evaluation is therefore adequate, and no extraschedular referral is required. Id; see also VAOGCPREC 6-96 (Aug. 16, 1996). Otherwise, if the schedular evaluation does not contemplate the claimant's level of disability and symptomatology and is found inadequate, VA must determine whether the claimant's exceptional disability picture exhibits other related factors, such as those provided by the extraschedular regulation (38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1)) as "governing norms" (which include marked interference with employment and frequent periods of hospitalization). The evidence in this case does not show such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular evaluations for the service-connected disability is inadequate. A comparison between the level of severity and symptomatology of the Veteran's assigned evaluation with the established criteria found in the rating schedule shows that the rating criteria reasonably describes the Veteran's disability level and symptomatology. As such, it cannot be said that the available schedular evaluation for this disability is inadequate. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has reported experiencing dizziness and headaches as well as nose bleeds when his blood pressure is too high. However, there is no medical opinion attributing headaches or nose bleeds to the Veteran's service-connected hypertension. Rather, the evidence only documents the Veteran's own belief that they are related. Without sufficient evidence that the alleged unusual functional impairment is attributed to the underlying service-connected disability, extraschedular consideration is foreclosed. See Long v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 167 (2020). Moreover, there is no indication or argument that headaches and dizziness cannot be adequately evaluated under rating schedule. Diagnostic Codes 8100 and 6204 specifically provide rating criteria for headaches and peripheral vestibular disorders. A disability cannot be deemed exceptional where it is capable of evaluation by conventional rating means. See Long v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 167 (2020). In addition, even considering the second Thun factor independently, there is no indication that the Veteran's hypertension has resulted in periods of hospitalization or marked interference with employment. The Veteran has not contended otherwise. Based on the foregoing, it cannot be said that the available schedular evaluations are inadequate. Accordingly, the Board finds that the requirements for an extraschedular evaluation under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) have not been met. Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337 (1996); Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218 (1995); Thun, supra. TDIU prior to January 30, 2016 All veterans who are shown to be unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disability shall be rated totally disabled. For VA purposes, total disability exists when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 4.16(b). A total disability rating for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when a veteran is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or as a result of two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Nevertheless, even when the percentage requirements are not met, entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis may be granted in exceptional cases when the veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Entitlement to a total rating must be based solely on the impact of service-connected disabilities on the ability to keep and maintain substantially gainful employment. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. The central inquiry is "whether the veteran's service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability." Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). For VA purposes, the term "unemployability" is synonymous with inability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. VAOPGPREC 75-91, 57 Fed. Reg. 2317 (Jan. 21, 1992). Consideration may be given to the veteran's education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his or her age or to the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; see also Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). A high rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment, but the ultimate question is whether a veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether he or she can find employment. See Van Hoose, 4 Vet. App. at 363. Prior to January 30, 2016, the Veteran was service-connected for PTSD (70 percent); sinusitis (50 percent); irritable bowel syndrome (30 percent since January 30, 2013); residuals of a dislocation of the left shoulder (30 percent); hypertension, (10 percent); sinus arrhythmia (10 percent); scar on the anterior neck (10 percent); eczema (10 percent); hypothyroidism and Hashimoto's thyroiditis with hurthle celladenomas status post hemithyroidectomy (10 percent); and facial defect of the left lower leg (noncompensable). His combined evaluation was 90 percent effective from June 6, 2011, and 100 percent effective from January 30, 2013. Thus, he met the schedular requirements for TDIU as of June 6, 2011. The Court held in Bradley v. Peake held that a claim for a TDIU on the basis of a certain disability is not moot once a schedular 100 percent evaluation is assigned on the basis of other disabilities, as the TDIU may still form the basis for assignment of special monthly compensation (SMC) under section 1114(s). See Bradley, 22 Vet. App. at 294. The Court determined that a separate TDIU rating predicated on one disability (although perhaps not ratable at the schedular 100 percent level) when considered together with another disability separately rated at 60 percent or more could warrant special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s). Thus, the Court reasoned, it might benefit the Veteran to retain the TDIU rating, even where a 100 percent schedular rating has also been granted. Id. See also Guerra v. Shinseki, 642 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250-51 (2010). For the period from January 30, 2013, to January 30, 2016, the Veteran has been in receipt of a combined schedular rating of 100 percent for his service-connected disabilities. The Veteran does not have a single disability rated at 100 percent with an additional disability rated at 60 percent or more for this time period. 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s); Bradley, 22 Vet. App. at 294; Buie, 24 Vet. App. at 250. The Veteran was assigned a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD during this time period. Therefore, the only avenue for further benefit to the Veteran would be entitlement to SMC by meeting the criteria of at least a 60 percent rating for PTSD and for TDIU based on another service-connected disability. Thus, for the period from January 30, 2013, t January 30, 2016, the crux of this case is whether the Veteran had a single service-connected disability other than PTSD that rendered him unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008), In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation for the period from June 6, 2011, to January 30, 2013, or that a single service-connected disability rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation for the period from January 30, 2013, to January 30, 2016. Although the Veteran did report some difficulties associated with his employment, the evidence shows that he was able to work and maintained full-time employment from June 6, 2011, to January 30, 2016. See e.g., August 2011 and May 2015 VA examination reports. The Veteran has not contended otherwise. Indeed, he reported in an April 2016 VA Form 21-8490 that he became too disabled to work on January 29, 2016, and that he last worked full-time as an electrician on that date. He also indicated that he had earned $45,000 during the prior 12 months. Thus, the Veteran maintained a substantially gainful occupation prior to January 30, 2016. In addition, the August 2011 VA examiners found that the Veteran's PTSD and hypertension did not impact his ability to work. There is also no indication that his other service-connected disabilities had any impact on his employment. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the requirements for TDIU prior to January 30, 2016, have not been met. Thus, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim is denied. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.M. Walker 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.