Citation Nr: 21012664 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 08-11 948 DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service with the U.S. Army from January 2003 to December 2005. This case comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder, rated 10 percent disabling, effective December 17, 2005. The Veteran disagreed with the initial evaluation; in an April 2008 Decision Review Officer Decision, an increased, 30 percent rating was assigned for the entirety of the appeal period. The Veteran continued his appeal for a yet higher evaluation. In an August 2017 Board decision and remand, the Board denied an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and inferred a claim of entitlement to TDIU, as part and parcel of that claim for increase. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The RO had done so previously, in 2009, but withdrew such after the Veteran, through his then-representative, stated he was working and not claiming TDIU. However, the Veteran re-raised the issue in February 2014, when he mentioned TDIU in a new claim for benefits. This was not addressed prior to the August 2017 Board remand. On May 2020 VA 21-8940, the Veteran indicated that his PTSD, migraines, and back condition prevented him from securing and following any gainful employment. He indicated that his disabilities affected his full-time employment in January 2020. The Veteran indicated that he last worked full-time in March 11, 2020. In July 2020, the Veteran was afforded a VA PTSD examination. The Veteran reported that he had not held employment for the last several years. He reported that he was a stay at home parent to his 4 children. He indicated that he worked for 5 months at a restaurant working at the register and serving food. He noted that he currently worked one day a week at a tire store. On July 2020 statement, the Veteran informed that the RO that his former employer was closed for about a month and a half. He indicated that he was not sure if they were closed permanently. However, an August 2020 general report noted that the RO contacted an unknown employee and stated that the restaurant was open. An August 2020 VA 21-4192 indicated that the Veteran ended employment in September 2018. The name of his employer was not listed. The document indicated that the Veteran separated for personal reasons. The record does not reflect a VA 21-4192 from the Veteran’s employer from the restaurant or tire shop he reported in his July 2020 VA PTSD examination. The RO indicated that the restaurant was still open in August 2020. Furthermore, the record reflects that the Veteran still works one day a week for a tire shop. The record is unclear of the reason the Veteran left employment at the restaurant and what he does at the tire shop. Therefore, a remand is necessary in order to obtain this information from the Veteran. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. Contact the Veteran and request a properly completed, updated VA Form 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. The Veteran should take care to properly identify his most recent employers; details regarding the restaurant and tire shop reported in his July 2020 VA PTSD examination must be specifically included in his response. Notify the Veteran that failure to return the VA Form 21-8940 may negatively impact his claim. 3. Then, for each identified former or current employer, the RO must take appropriate steps to secure a VA Form 21-4192 detailing the circumstances of the Veteran’s employment and/or termination. 4. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If any benefit sought remains denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and return the appeal to the Board. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Baxter 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.