Citation Nr: 21077061 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 18-42 478 DATE: December 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from September 12, 2016, is granted. Entitlement to an assignment of an effective date of September 12, 2015, but no earlier, for a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD, is granted. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU), effective March 16, 2020, but no earlier, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. From September 12, 2016, the Veteran's service-connected PTSD has been productive of symptoms of severe symptomatology, resulting in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. 2. Although the Regional Office subsequently granted the Veteran's increased rating claim for PTSD on September 12, 2016, the evidence of record reflects that an increase in the Veteran's PTSD disability was factually ascertainable within one-year prior to the filing of his claim seeking the increased rating evaluation; thus an earlier effective date of September 12, 2015 is warranted. 3. From March 16, 2020, the evidence of record reflects that the Veteran's service-connected PTSD rendered him unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an entitlement to a rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for PTSD, from September 12, 2016, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, Diagnostic Code 9411. 2. The criteria for an effective date of September 12, 2015, but no earlier, for the assignment of a 70 percent rating for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. 3. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU, effective March 16, 2020, but no earlier, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from October 1968 to August 1972. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These matters were previously before the Board in January 2021 when the Veteran testified at a virtual Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. The Board notes that the Veteran subsequently filed a claim for TDIU in March 2021. Although prior to this decision the Veteran's current combined rating of 60 percent did not meet the schedular rating for a TDIU, in determining that there is plausible evidence of record that suggests the Veteran may be unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities, the RO referred his claim to the Director of Compensation Service for a possible extraschedular evaluation for TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b), which is currently pending. However, notwithstanding this fact, as the Board has granted the Veteran a 70 percent rating for his PTSD throughout the appeal period in this decision, the Veteran has now met the TDIU schedular requirement and thus, this obviates the need for the Director's extraschedular opinion. Consequently, because a claim for TDIU is part and parcel of the Veteran's increased rating PTSD claim that is currently before appeal, the Board finds that the issue of entitlement to TDIU have also been raised by the record pursuant to Rice, and is also currently before the Board. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Increased Rating for PTSD Disability evaluations are determined by evaluating the extent to which a Veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10. If two evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation; otherwise, the lower evaluation will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. However, the evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses, known as pyramiding, is to be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. Any reasonable doubt regarding a degree of disability is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The Veteran's service-connected PTSD has been evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411. However, the actual criteria for rating the Veteran's disability are set forth in a General Rating Formula for evaluating psychiatric disabilities other than eating disorders. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Under that code, a 50 percent rating is provided when there is occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped, speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short and long term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent rating is provided for 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 worklike setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. A 100 percent rating is provided for 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 of the veteran to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The symptoms associated with the rating criteria are not intended to constitute exhaustive lists, but rather serve as examples of the type and degree of the symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002). A Veteran may only qualify for a disability rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration that result in the levels of occupational and social impairment provided. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013). To adequately evaluate and assign the appropriate disability rating to the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability, the Board must analyze the evidence as a whole and the enumerated factors listed in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 436. As this claim was certified to the Board after August 4, 2014, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM-5) is applicable to the claim. In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the frequency and severity of his current symptomatology that is observable to the senses. Layno v Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Additionally, the Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998). 1. Entitlement to a rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from September 12, 2016. The Veteran was granted service connection for PTSD in an October 2007 rating decision, at a 30 percent evaluation which he did not appeal. On September 12, 2016, the Veteran filed an increased rating claim seeking a higher than 30 percent disabling evaluation for his PTSD. In a subsequent December 2016 rating decision, the RO increased the Veteran's PTSD rating from 30 percent to 50 percent, effective September 12, 2016, the date of his VA Form 21-526b Veteran's Supplemental Claim for Compensation was received. Following an award of a 50 percent rating for his PTSD, the Veteran then filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD), seeking a rating higher than 50 percent and an earlier effective date, matters which are currently before the Board. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination to assess the current severity of his PTSD and has submitted private treatments records which are respectively discussed below. November 2016 PTSD examination During the Veteran's November 2016 PTSD examination, the examiner reported that the Veteran exhibited symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships and suicidal ideation. The Veteran reported experiencing increased nightmares, suicidal thoughts, difficulty concentrating since he stopped taking Effexor, his prescribed medication. However, he denied ever having any specific plan to suicide and reported that he was committed to staying alive for his children and grandson. The examiner further reported that no evidence of psychosis, mania, or disorientation was observed and that the Veteran reported attending to his hygienic needs and showering daily. Further, the Veteran reported that he was currently working full time doing marketing and sales development with a company he started with in 2016 and that he worked from his home office; that prior to this job, he worked 25 years plus, also full time in sales and that following several reprimands, the job ended in October 2015. With regards to his social life, the Veteran reported that he has been divorced since 1996, he has 2 grown children and his 2-year-old grandson whom he sees approximately twice a month; that he currently lives by himself, and he has a girlfriend of 10 years; that he sees his twin sister who lives out of state once to twice a year; that he has a couple friends from Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) and that they socialize as a group outside of AA meetings every few months. The VA examiner's overall finding was that the Veteran's level of occupational and social impairment was with reduced reliability and productivity. Private Treatment Records The records also include the Veteran's mental health/PTSD private treatment records, which the Board has also taken into consideration, as specifically referenced below. A May 2017 Mental Health Note During this evaluation, the Veteran reported that he enjoyed spending time with friends, but not at work, with the following specific assessment was reported: Appearance - gait: normal; dress: casual affect - not labile, appropriate, laughed at times; mood dysphoric; thought content - desire for assistance; thought process - goal oriented /no loose associations; memory - long term: good; recent: good; immediate recall: good thought disorder - not circumstantial / not tangential hallucinations - pt denies delusions none suicidality - pt denies any suicidal ideation weapons none assessment - dysthymia, in remission; plan - continue Prozac; pt to return in 3 months. October 2017 PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) The Veteran submitted this report in December 2017 from his treating psychologist, written in October 2017. This reflects a more severe PTSD disability report than that reported during his November 2016 PTSD VA examination. Specifically, that the Veteran exhibited these additional symptoms: flattened effect, impaired judgment, difficulty understanding complex commands, inability to main effective relationships, impaired impulse control, grossly inappropriate behavior, circumstantial or stereotypy speech, memory loss of names of close relatives, and total. It was noted that notwithstanding all of these symptoms, that the Veteran could manage his own finances. His overall assessment was described as a total occupational and social impairment. August 2019 PTSD Interpretive Report This report summarized that the Veteran's symptoms meet the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for PTSD, demonstrating that the severity of his disorder was estimated to be in the severe range, with clinically meaningful levels of trauma-specific dissociation, substance abuse and suicidal ideation, resulting in a recommendation of a more extended or intense psychological and/or pharmacological treatment. April 2021 Review Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) DBQ The Veteran also submitted this report in April 2021. The examiner summarized his findings as follows: After interviewing the patient and reviewing all available medical records, it is the opinion of this examiner that the patient continues to meet DSM-V criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The patient's PTSD continues to be a result of his military service and related to his fear of in-service hostile military or terrorist activity; specifically, his deployment to Vietnam. His current PTSD symptoms (low frustration tolerance, irritability, thoughts of suicide, anxiety, and chronic sleep impairment) would significantly negatively impact his ability to find and maintain gainful employment at this time. As to his current social impairment, the Veteran reported that his girlfriend had moved out, which he associated with difficult communication, commitment, and irritability issues, and also denied having significant friendships, noting that he was lonely. However, he also reported that he continues to maintain a relationship with his adult children and specifically, that he spends time with his (now two) grandchildren who "keeps my feet on the ground". Analysis The Board notes that the overall evidence of record shows that the Veteran suffers from a spectrum of symptoms ranging from anxiety, anger, irritability, intrusive thoughts, sleep impairment, difficulty with complex commands, memory impairment, and disturbances of motivation and mood. The Board acknowledges that the November 2016 VA examiner characterized the Veteran's impairment as occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability. However, the Board finds that the Veteran's overall symptoms, namely his anxiety, anger, irritability, intrusive thoughts, sleep impairment, difficulty with complex commands, memory impairment, and disturbances of motivation and mood have resulted in impairment in most areas throughout the pendency of the appeal. This is because throughout the period of appeal, the Veteran has exhibited suicidal ideations (less so during the beginning of appeal, but more so as reported in October 2017 and April 2021); there is also a manifestation of some level of difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting), which the Veteran testified about during his January 2021 virtual Board hearing, reporting that this is managed by working from a home office, so as to avoid directly interacting with his co-workers . The record also reflects that the Veteran has exhibited continuous symptoms of depression that adversely affects his ability to function appropriately and effectively, particularly to establish and maintain effective relationships, as evident in the fact that the Veteran also testified that he is depressed because he has no friends, was lonely, and thus, he is constantly frustrated. However, during his testimony, the Veteran also acknowledged that he does maintain a somewhat fractured relationship family with his family. In this regard, the Board notes that the Veteran had previously reported (during November 2016 VA examination) that he maintains a relationship with one of his adult children and his grandson whom he sees approximately twice a month. Further, during a subsequent April 2021 PTSD DBQ evaluation, although the Veteran reported that he was still living by himself and he was no longer in a relationship, he also reported that he enjoyed spending time with his two grandchildren (3 and 6) who "keeps my feet on the ground." The Board also acknowledged that the Veteran's October 2017 Private PTSD report reflects an assessment of total occupational and social impairment. However, as has been demonstrated, this is inconsistent with the other evidence of record, as the Veteran continues to maintain a relationship with his grandchildren (whom he clearly enjoys spending time with) and he was also employed on a full time basis, until March 15, 2020. Thus, the Board has given less probative weight to this aspect of the October 2017 report. The same is also true for the April 2021 report, with regard to the level of the Veteran's social impairment. Though the Veteran was no longer working, thus, establishing total occupational impairment, he also reported that he continued to maintain a relationship with his two adult children, and continues to spend time with his grandchildren. Thus, after taking into consideration the frequency, severity, and duration of the Veteran's impairment, the Board finds that the evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran's disability due to PTSD most nearly approximates the schedular criteria for a rating of 70 percent rating throughout the period of appeal. See Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 117 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Board further finds that a 100 percent rating is not warranted as the Veteran's PTSD did not result in total social impairment based on the report of the Veteran maintaining an ongoing close relationship with his grandchildren, albeit a fractured relationship with his adult children. Indeed, the fact that the Veteran occasionally spent time with a couple friends from Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) every few months, socializing outside of their AA meetings, affirmatively opposes the notion of total social impairment. Rather, as discussed above, his symptoms are more akin to an occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas. Thus, a 70 percent rating, but no higher, is warranted in this case, as the Board cannot grant a 100 percent rating based on its assessment of the evidence of record. 2. Entitlement to an assignment of earlier effective date earlier than September 12, 2016, for a 50 percent evaluation for PTSD. The provisions governing the assignment of the effective dates are set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an initial evaluation and award of service connection based on an original claim, a claim reopened after a final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the latter. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The general rule with respect to the effective date of an award of increased compensation is that the effective date of award "shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of the application thereof." 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a). This statutory provision is implemented by regulation that provides that the effective date for an award of increased compensation will be the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(1). However, there is an exception to that rule under circumstances where the evidence demonstrates that a factually ascertainable increase in disability occurred within the one-year period preceding the date of receipt of a claim for increased compensation. If an increase in disability occurred within one-year prior to the claim, the increase is effective as of the date the increase was "factually ascertainable." 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2); Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2010). If the increase occurred more than one year prior to the claim, the increase is effective the date of claim. If the increase occurred after the date of claim, the effective date is the date of increase. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(2); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. at 31-32; Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125 (1997); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o)(1)(2); VAOPGCPREC 12-98 (1998). In addition, prior to March 24, 2015, any communication or action indicating intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA, from a claimant, his or her duly authorized representative, a Member of Congress, or some person acting as next friend of a claimant who is not sui juris may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. If received within one year from the date it was sent to the claimant, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the informal claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (in effect prior to March 24, 2015). There is no set form that an informal written claim must take. All that is required is that the communication indicates an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA, and identify the benefits sought. Rodriguez v. West, 189 F.3d 1351 (1999). Case law is clear that this means the claimant must describe the nature of the disability for which he is seeking benefits, such as by describing a body part or symptom of the disability. Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 86-87 (2009). Effective March 24, 2015, a change in the regulation requires claims be filed on standard forms, eliminating constructive receipt of claims and informal claims. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (p), 3.150, 3.155, 3.160(a). Instead of informal claims, the new regulation provides that a claimant may request an application for benefits, upon receipt of which, the Secretary shall notify the claimant of the information necessary to complete the application form or form prescribed by the Secretary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (a). The regulation also allows a claimant to submit an intent to file a claim, and VA may recognize the receipt date of the intent to file a claim as the date of claim so long as VA receives the successfully completed claim form within a year. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (b). There are three ways in which a claimant may submit an intent to file a claim: (i) saved electronic application- when an application otherwise meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) is electronically initiated and saved in a claims-submission tool with a VA web-based electronic claims application system, (ii) written intent, signed and dated on the intent to file a claim form prescribed by the Secretary, and (iii) oral intent communicated to designated VA personnel, recorded in writing, and documented in the claimant's records. Id. In the Federal Register, lawmakers explained the change: "those claimants who are familiar with VA's claims process may recognize the operation of the intent to file process as functioning similar to the current informal claim process." However, "[t]he difference is that the intent to file a claim form serves as the effective date placeholder like the informal claim itself but must be submitted in specified standard formats and will only trigger VA's duty to furnish the claimant the appropriate form." This rule will not disturb the amount of monies paid except "where a claimant who is not familiar with the intent to file a claim process submits an informal claim which VA will deem as a request for an application for benefits, resulting in the claimant submitting an intent to file a claim form or complete claim at a later date." Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57660, 57661 (Sept. 25, 2014). Analysis As noted in the Introduction, the Veteran initially asserted that an effective date prior to September 12, 2016, was warranted for the assignment of a 50 percent evaluation for his service-connected PTSD. However, as discussed above, the Board has concluded that the most probative evidence reflects that the criteria for a 70 percent evaluation are most closely approximated from September 12, 2016, to the present. As such, the Veteran's appealed issue has been expanded to include entitlement to any evaluation in excess of 30 percent prior to September 12, 2016, and this action is not prejudicial to the Veteran. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 394 (1993). Therefore, the question before the Board is whether there is any submission and/or communication within the Veteran's file prior to his September 2012 claim seeking an increased evaluation for service-connected PTSD that may be construed as an unadjudicated formal or informal claim. Pertinently, the Veteran's file is devoid of any such document. The record does not reflect that VA received any claim, formal or informal, seeking an increased evaluation for a service-connected PTSD prior to September 12, 2016. Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198-200 (1992). The Veteran has not pointed to any communication or document received by VA prior to this date that could serve as an earlier, unadjudicated claim for benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). Further, the record does not reflect that the Veteran or someone on his behalf as outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) filed an intent to file or formal claim for an increased evaluation for this disability on an appropriate form prescribed by the Secretary from March 25, 2015, to September 12, 2016. Neither the Veteran nor his accredited representative has asserted that such a file was filed by an appropriate party and/or received by VA during this period. Having determined that the Veteran's formal claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected PTSD disability was filed no earlier than September 12, 2016, the Board notes that, in support of his appeal, the Veteran subsequently submitted a private psychiatric assessment completed by his treating psychiatrist Dr. A.T., dated in October 2017, which has been previously refenced in analyzing the severity of his PTSD detailed above in this decision. Conceding the retrospective nature of Dr. A.T.'s statements concerning the frequency, severity, and duration of the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms and their resulting functional impairment, the Board will resolve all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor in determining that the evidence reflects a factually discernable increase in psychiatric symptomatology within one year of his September 2016 claim. As such, the exception provided by 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) applies, and the effective date for a 70 percent evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD disability is warranted from September 12, 2015 - one year prior to the (Agency of Jurisdiction) AOJ's receipt of his formal claim seeking an increased evaluation for this disability. Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2010) In light of the above, the Board finds that the appropriate effective date for assignment of a 70 percent evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability is September 12, 2015, and to that extent only, the Veteran's appeal is granted. However, as there is no legal basis for assignment of an even earlier effective date with regard to this award, the appeal as to entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 12, 2015, must be denied. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). 3. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). After a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that a TDIU, particularly based on his service-connected PTSD, have rendered the Veteran unable to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment as of March 16, 2020, one day after the Veteran last worked. It is the established policy of the VA that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. A total disability will be considered to exist 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. Entitlement to a TDIU is based on an individual's circumstances. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16; Todd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 79, 85-86 (2014). Thus, in adjudicating a TDIU claim, VA must consider the individual veteran's education, training, and work history, but not his or her age or the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; see also Todd, 27 Vet. App. at 85-86. The ultimate question of whether a veteran is capable of substantial gainful employment is an adjudicatory determination, not a medical one. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("applicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA, not a medical examiner"). A TDIU may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total, when it is found that the disabled person is 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 service-connected disabilities, provided that one of those disabilities is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disabilities to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). Here, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities (PTSD, tinnitus and hearing loss), prior to the decision was collectively at 60 percent, but upon the granting of a 70 percent PTSD rating in his decision, effective September 12, 2016, he now satisfies the schedular criteria for a TDIU. In March 2021, the Veteran filed a claim for TDIU, asserting that as of March 15, 2020, he could no longer work due to his PTSD. Both the October 2017 DBQ and April 2021 DBQ previously referenced, respectively states that the severity of his PTSD symptoms reflects total occupational disability. The Veteran reportedly had a long-standing career in full time sales (25 years in a prior job that ended in October 105, before his more recent job ending in March 2020), which he had been able to manage for the most part by working at his home office until he could no longer work. Given that the Board has already determined that the Veteran's PTSD rating is 70 percent throughout the period of appeal, this further reflects that the Veteran has exhibited continuously exhibited symptoms that adversely affected his ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively. Additionally, the Board finds that Veteran's depressed mood and lack of motivation further diminished his ability to obtain or maintain any other form of employment. Therefore, based on the evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran's service-connected PTSD precluded him from obtaining or maintain substantially gainful employment since March 15, 2020, and thus his claim for TDIU is granted as of March 16, 2020. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J.B. King, Associate 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.