Citation Nr: 21010375 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-25 191 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 2007 to October 2011 with service in Afghanistan; she is in receipt of the Combat Action Badge. This appeal was last before the Board in December 2020, when it was remanded in accordance with a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR) issued by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in July 2020. The Board remanded for the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to consider the additional pertinent evidence associated with the file since July 2020 relating to the Veteran’s TDIU claim. The AOJ has completed that action and issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in January 2021. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). However, the Board finds that relevant evidence has been associated with the claims file since the SSOC and additional development is necessary for the proper adjudication of the appeal. Entitlement to total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. The Board notes that subsequent to the January 2021 SSOC, the Veteran has submitted Income and Tax Statements (to include 2017, 2019 and 2020 W-2 forms showing a total of $ 6803.50 earned from Burlington in 2017, a total of $2,961.95 earned from Good Shepherd Services in 2019, and earnings of $11,594.87 from Amazon Com Services in 2020). Also, in January 2021, the Veteran submitted a statement detailing her work history while her TDIU claim has been on appeal. She wrote that she had been unable to obtain continuous employment, and as a result, has lived in poverty and struggled with homelessness. She noted that with her education and military experience, “finding a job is not my issue. I struggle with the ability of keeping a job.” In a separate statement, she wrote that since 2015 she had worked at Burlington Coat Factory, Good Shepherds, Bleuler Psychotherapy, Catholic Charities, and Amazon. However, the most recent VA Form 21-8940 Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability does not include a complete list of the Veteran’s employers, as noted in her statements. Moreover, the Board notes that the file does not contain VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claims for Disability Benefits for each of the Veteran’s employers during the period on appeal. The Board requires this critical information to adjudicate the TDIU appeal. Finally, the Board observes that the Veteran’s mental health diagnosis was changed in a February 2021 records review from adjustment disorder, mixed anxiety and depression to major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate and unspecified anxiety disorder. The Board finds that a current examination is necessary to ascertain the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected mental health disability, as it is the sole basis for her claim for TDIU. Accordingly, the appeal must be remanded for additional development. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Notify the Veteran of her duties to assist in the development of her claim of entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran is reminded that she must complete the appropriate forms in association with filing her claim. Of note, section 17 in the July 2019 VA Form 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability was not completed, and a complete work history since September 2014 is necessary for the adjudication of the claim. 2. The AOJ must ask the Veteran for the names and addresses for all employers for whom she has worked since September 2014, the period on appeal. Then the AOJ must ask each employer/former employer to complete a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claims for Disability Benefits. A failure to respond or a negative reply to any request must be noted in writing and associated with the claims folder. 3. The AOJ should make all reasonable efforts to obtain relevant medical and/or treatment records related to the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. If identified records are not ultimately obtained, the Veteran should be notified pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). All obtained records should be associated with the claims file 4. While the above actions are being completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA Mental Health examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of her mental health disability. The examiner must also opine on the occupational effects caused by the Veteran’s service-connected mental health disability. The examiner should provide concrete examples of functional impairments caused by the Veteran’s service-connected mental health disability. The types of impairments the examiner should address include, but are not limited to, walking, sitting, lifting and standing limitations, impaired ability to interact socially, as well as problems with memory and concentration. The examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements. In addition, the examiner should comment on whether there is a 50 percent or better probability that the Veteran’s service-connected mental health disability, either alone or in concert, is sufficiently disabling to preclude her from obtaining or maintaining any form of substantially gainful employment consistent with her education and occupational background. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Nelson 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.