Citation Nr: 21013825 Decision Date: 03/10/21 Archive Date: 03/10/21 DOCKET NO. 18-21 760 DATE: March 10, 2021 ORDER Service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is granted. Service connection for coronary artery disease is granted. Service connection for hypertension is granted. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for asbestosis is denied. Service connection for pulmonary vascular disease is denied. Service connection for neck arthritis is denied. Service connection for right hip osteoarthritis, to include as secondary to service-connected right inguinal hernia is denied. Service connection for a left hip disorder, to include strain and osteoarthritis, to include as secondary to service-connected right inguinal hernia is denied. Service connection for peptic ulcers as secondary to service-connected stroke is denied. A total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disorders is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. With resolution of the doubt in his favor, the Veteran’s chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was caused by service. 2. With resolution of the doubt in his favor, the Veteran’s coronary artery disease was caused by service. 3. With resolution of the doubt in his favor, the Veteran’s hypertension was caused by service. 4. With resolution of the doubt in his favor, the Veteran’s tinnitus was incurred in-service. 5. The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not incurred in or caused by service. 6. The Veteran does not have a diagnosis of asbestosis. 7. The Veteran’s pulmonary vascular disease was not caused by service. 8. The Veteran does not have a diagnosis of neck arthritis. 9. The Veteran did not undergo an in-service event, injury or disease as to his bilateral hip disorder. 10. The Veteran’s bilateral hip disorder was not caused or aggravated by his service-connected right inguinal hernia. 11. The Veteran’s peptic ulcers were not caused or aggravated by his service-connected stroke. 12. With resolution of the doubt in his favor, the Veteran’s service-connected disorders precluded him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 2. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 3. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 4. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309(a). 5. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). 6. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for asbestosis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 7. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for pulmonary vascular disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 8. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for neck arthritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 9. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for right hip osteoarthritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(d), 3.310. 10. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for a left hip disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(d), 3.310. 11. The criteria to establish entitlement to service connection for peptic ulcers have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. 12. The criteria to establish entitlement to a TDIU due to service-connected disorders have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from December 1955 to December 1958. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 rating decision of the Detroit, Michigan Regional Office (RO). In August 2018, the Veteran was afforded a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). During the hearing, the VLJ engaged in a colloquy with the Veteran toward substantiation of the claims. Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488, 496-97 (2010). A hearing transcript is in the record. In November 2018, the Board remanded the appeal to the RO for additional action. There was substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Veteran is in receipt of special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k), (l) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a), (b) from January 31, 2017 and continuing thereafter. In a June 2014 response, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) indicated that the Veteran’s military personnel and service treatment records were fire-related and that all available documents were reconstructed and uploaded into the Veteran’s claims file. Under such circumstances, the Board has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and to carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine where applicable. O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). However, no presumption, either in favor of the Veteran or against VA, arises when there are lost or missing service records. See Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217 (2005). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a current disability arising from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection shall be granted on a secondary basis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 where it is demonstrated that a service-connected disorder caused or aggravated a nonservice-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease and hypertension In November 2018, the Board remanded the claims for further development as to the issue of an in-service event, injury or disease and for the RO to schedule VA examinations. In a December 2020 statement, the Veteran through his representative, indicated that he was unable to report to any scheduled VA examinations due to health concerns pertaining to the COVID pandemic and requested to have his claims adjudicated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a), (b). The Veteran attributes his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypertension to having been exposed to asbestos, environmental toxins and hazards while he was stationed at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. The claims will be granted. A December 1955 military personnel record (MPR) titled “Morning Report” reflects that the Veteran’s permanent station was Camp Chaffee, Arkansas. A February 2004 document from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that Fort Chaffee, Arkansas was historically used for military training and that the U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Chaffee officially closed in September 1997. An environmental assessment was conducted and it was found that most of the buildings originally constructed before 1978 were presumed to contain lead-based paint, asbestos-containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, sumps/pits, sewer lines and blank small arms ammunition. See https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/ files/2017-07/documents/ftch-rfr-sanders-final-2.pdf (last visited February 26, 2021). VA treatment records dated September 2000, October 2005 and March 2011 reflect the Veteran’s diagnoses of hypertension, COPD and CAD, respectively. In a January 2018 letter, a non-VA medical examiner opined that the Veteran’s COPD was caused by the Veteran’s exposure to friable asbestos while he was stationed in Fort Chaffee. The examiner indicated that friable asbestos, as the most hazardous form of asbestos, can be crumbled by hand and releases fibers into the air. Once inhaled, the body cannot break the asbestos fibers down and the fibers become lodged in the lung tissue resulting in tissue scarring and a long latency period of up to 40 years. The non-VA examiner also opined that the Veteran’s CAD and hypertension were caused by the Veteran’s exposure to environmental hazards, to include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides while he was stationed at Fort Chaffee because PCBs have been linked to cardiovascular disease. Having cited to several studies, the examiner indicated that exposure to PCBs can lead to obesity, diabetes and lipid abnormalities which are risk factors for developing cardiovascular disease. The examiner also indicated that PCBs modulate cellular signaling pathways leading to common detrimental outcomes, including induction of chronic oxidative stress, inflammation and endocrine disruption. The Board will grant the claims based on the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. Although the Veteran’s MPRs and STRs were fire-related, the evidence reflects that the Veteran was stationed at Fort Chaffee and exposed to asbestos, environmental toxins and hazards. The January 2018 non-VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s COPD, CAD and hypertension was caused by the Veteran’s exposure to asbestos, environmental toxins and hazards at Fort Chaffee. Significantly, no competent medical provider has opined otherwise. The Board will resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. Therefore, service connection is warranted and the claims are granted. Tinnitus Tinnitus, as an organic disease of the nervous system, is a “chronic disease” listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Therefore, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) are for application. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Where the evidence shows a “chronic disease” in service or “continuity of symptoms” after service, the disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service. For the showing of “chronic” disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. With chronic disease as such during active service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected unless they are clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. Generally, if a condition noted during active service is not shown to be chronic, then, a “continuity of symptoms” after service is required to establish service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Additionally, as a chronic disease, tinnitus will be considered to have been incurred in or aggravated by service if the disease becomes manifest to a compensable degree within one year from the date of service separation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(3). In his August 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified to having been exposed to military acoustic trauma as a Motor Vehicle Specialist. A December 1958 MPR titled “Special Orders” reflects that the Veteran’s duty specialty was “MOS 640.00” designated as a Light Vehicle Driver. Due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of such veteran’s service as shown by such veteran’s service record, the official history of each organization in which such veteran served, such veteran’s medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). As a Light Vehicle Driver, the Veteran would have been exposed to military acoustic trauma. An August 2011 VA treatment record reflects no prior medical history for tinnitus. In a July 2013 VA treatment record, the Veteran denied experiencing tinnitus. A June 2016 VA treatment record reflects the Veteran’s report of experiencing occasional bilateral tinnitus two times per week. In his August 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified to having initially experienced a “ringing” sound during service and that he continued to experience ringing in his ears intermittently post-service. The Veteran is competent to report having experienced tinnitus from service to the present. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002) (holding that a veteran is competent to testify as to in-service acoustic trauma, in-service symptoms of tinnitus and post-service continuous symptoms of tinnitus because ringing in the ears is capable of lay observation). The Veteran’s testimony is also credible. The Board will grant the claim as to continuity of symptomatology based on the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. Although the Veteran denied experiencing tinnitus in a July 2013 VA treatment record, the Veteran has testified to experiencing occasional tinnitus since service to the present. As noted above, the Veteran’s testimony is competent and credible. The Board will resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. Therefore, service connection is warranted and the claim is granted. Bilateral hearing loss Bilateral hearing loss, as an organic disease of the nervous system, is a “chronic disease” listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Therefore, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) are for application. Walker, supra. As noted above, the Veteran would have been exposed to military acoustic trauma as a Light Vehicle Driver. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). In an August 2011 VA treatment record, no hearing defects were noted. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) (statements made to physicians for purposes of diagnosis or treatment are exceptionally trustworthy since the declarant has a strong motive to tell the truth in order to receive proper care). In a July 2013 VA treatment record, the Veteran reported that he “suddenly couldn’t hear a certain tone” and that he was not exposed to post-service acoustic trauma. The Veteran underwent an audiogram but it was not in his file; however, the VA audiologist indicated that speech recognition scores were 68 percent for the right ear and 82 percent for the left ear. Impaired hearing will be considered a disability when the thresholds for any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz are 40 decibels or more; or the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels; or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. In his August 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified to having sometimes worn ear plugs during service. The Veteran wore hearing aids during the Board hearing and he was not exposed to post-service acoustic trauma. The Veteran is competent to report having experienced trouble hearing; however, he is not competent to provide a medical opinion as to the cause of his bilateral hearing loss. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To the extent that the Veteran claims to have experienced post-service chronic or continuous symptoms of bilateral hearing loss, the Veteran is not credible because no bilateral hearing loss was noted at separation, an August 2011 VA treatment record noted no hearing defects and the Veteran was not diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss until approximately 55 years after service separation. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that a lengthy period of absence of medical complaints for a condition can be considered as a factor in resolving the claim). On the record presented to the Board, a preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in or caused by service. The Veteran is not competent to provide a medical opinion as to the cause of his bilateral hearing loss. No bilateral hearing loss was noted at separation, an August 2011 VA treatment record noted no hearing defects and the Veteran was not diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss until approximately 55 years after service separation. Therefore, service connection is not warranted and the claim is denied. Asbestosis The Veteran contends that his asbestos induced breathing issues, to include asbestosis was caused by his exposure to asbestos, environmental toxins and hazards while he was stationed at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. The claim will be denied. The issue as to an in-service event, injury or disease – exposure to asbestos, environmental toxins and hazards at Fort Chaffee – is not in dispute. However, the Veteran is not competent, as a lay-person, to provide a self-diagnosis of asbestosis or provide a medical opinion as to the cause of his breathing trouble. Jandreau, supra. As noted above, the Veteran indicated that he would not report to any scheduled VA examinations and requested that the Board adjudicate based on the evidence of record. The Veteran has not submitted any competent evidence of a diagnosis of asbestosis. The Veteran’s private and VA treatment records are silent for any diagnosis of asbestosis. The law is well settled that in the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). On the record presented to the Board, a preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a diagnosis of asbestosis. The Veteran has not submitted any competent evidence of a diagnosis of asbestosis and the Veteran’s private and VA treatment records are silent for any diagnosis of asbestosis. Therefore, service connection is not warranted and the claim is denied. Pulmonary vascular disease The Veteran contends that his pulmonary vascular disease was caused by his exposure to asbestos, environmental toxins and hazards while he was stationed at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. The claim will be denied. As noted above, the issue as to an in-service event, injury or disease – exposure to asbestos, environmental toxins and hazards at Fort Chaffee – is not in dispute. However, the Veteran is not competent, as a lay-person, to provide a medical opinion as to the cause of his pulmonary vascular disease. Jandreau, supra. As noted above, the Veteran indicated that he would not report to any scheduled VA examinations and requested that the Board adjudicate based on the evidence of record. A July 2013 VA treatment record reflects the Veteran’s diagnosis of tube vascular disease. On the record presented to the Board, a preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s peripheral vascular disease was caused by service. The Veteran is not competent, as a lay-person, to provide a medical opinion as to the cause of his pulmonary vascular disease. No competent medical provider has opined that the Veteran’s pulmonary vascular disease was caused by service. Therefore, service connection is not warranted and the claim is denied. Neck arthritis The Veteran contends that his neck arthritis was caused after having fallen onto his head from a military vehicle. The claim will be denied. As noted above, the Veteran indicated that he would not report to any scheduled VA examinations and requested that the Board adjudicate based on the evidence of record. VA treatment records dated February 2006 and July 2006 reflect the Veteran’s report of experiencing neck pain. In a December 2013 VA treatment record, it was noted that the Veteran’s “back x-ray results” revealed degenerative changes consistent with osteoarthritis; however, there was no indication that the radiographic results concerned the Veteran’s neck. In an April 2014 VA treatment record, the Veteran was diagnosed with arthritis; however, there was no indication as to whether the diagnosis pertained to the Veteran’s neck. VA treatment records dated December 2015 and July 2016 reflect the Veteran’s report of experiencing neck pain. The law is well settled that in the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). The Veteran is not competent, as a lay-person, to provide a self-diagnosis of neck arthritis. Jandreau, supra. The Veteran has not submitted any competent evidence of a diagnosis of neck arthritis. The Veteran’s VA and private treatment records are silent for any diagnosis of neck arthritis. A preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. Therefore, service connection is not warranted and the claim is denied. Bilateral hip disorder The Veteran contends that his bilateral hip disorder was caused by the same in-service injury concerning his service-connected right inguinal hernia, or alternatively, as secondary to his service-connected right inguinal hernia resulting in an abnormal gait. The claim will be denied. VA treatment records dated October 2005, August 2011, April 2012 and September 2013 reflect a normal gait. A February 2014 VA treatment record reflects the Veteran’s report of experiencing hip pain. In a January 2015 statement, the Veteran’s fellow service-member indicated having served with the Veteran and that the Veteran “went on sick call . . . with some kind of injury.” Although most of the Veteran’s MPRs and STRs are presumed to have been destroyed in a fire, the Veteran’s fellow service-member’s vague description of an in-service injury is not sufficient to substantiate the Veteran having undergone an in-service event, injury or disease as to his bilateral hip disorder. See Gardin v. Shinseki, 613 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010). VA treatment records dated April 2015, June 2015, July 2015, August 2015 and February 2017 reflect a normal gait. In his August 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified to having been hit in the groin with a weapon during service and that he experienced bilateral hip pain. Alternatively, the Veteran testified that his bilateral hip disorder was secondary to his service-connected right inguinal hernia because it resulted in an abnormal gait. Although the Veteran’s MPRs and STRs were fire-related, as noted above, no presumption in favor of the Veteran arises when there are lost or missing service records. The Veteran’s testimony, in addition to the Veteran’s fellow service-member’s vague statement as to an in-service injury is not sufficient to substantiate the Veteran having undergone an in-service event, injury or disease as to his bilateral hip disorder. The Veteran is not competent, as a lay-person, to provide a medical opinion as to the cause or aggravation of his bilateral hip disorder. Jandreau, supra. In an August 2019 disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ), a non-VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with right hip osteoarthritis, left hip osteoarthritis and left hip strain. No etiology opinion was provided as to the Veteran’s right hip osteoarthritis; however, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s left hip disorder was “secondary to and caused” by right hernia residuals because the Veteran overcompensated on his left side which led to an antalgic gait. The non-VA medical opinion is of low probative value because the examiner did not consider the Veteran’s nine instances of a normal gait documented in his VA treatment records. While the law does not require that an examiner review the claims file, in order for an opinion to be probative, the examiner must have an accurate and complete understanding of the Veteran’s medical history. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). On the record presented to the Board, a preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran underwent an in-service event, injury or disease as to his bilateral hip disorder, or alternatively, that the Veteran’s bilateral hip disorder was secondary to his service-connected right inguinal hernia. The Veteran did not undergo an in-service event, injury or disease as to his bilateral hip disorder. No etiology opinion was provided concerning the Veteran’s right hip osteoarthritis. As noted above, the August 2019 non-VA examiner’s etiology opinion as to the Veteran’s left hip disorder was of low probative value. Therefore, service connection is not warranted and the claims are denied. Peptic ulcers The Veteran contends that his peptic ulcers were secondary to the medication the Veteran takes for his service-connected stroke. The claim will be denied. VA treatment records dated February 2003 to February 2017 reflect a diagnosis of a peptic ulcer. The Veteran is not competent, as a lay-person, to provide a medical opinion as to the cause or aggravation of his peptic ulcers. Jandreau, supra. As noted above, in November 2018, the Board remanded the claim for the RO to schedule a VA examination. In a December 2020 statement, the Veteran through his representative, indicated that he was unable to report to any scheduled VA examinations due to health concerns pertaining to the COVID pandemic and requested to have his claim adjudicated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a), (b). On the record presented to the Board, a preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s peptic ulcers were secondary to the medication the Veteran takes for his service-connected stroke. The Veteran is not competent, as a lay-person, to provide a medical opinion as to the cause or aggravation of his peptic ulcers. No competent medical provider has opined that the Veteran’s peptic ulcers were secondary to his service-connected stroke. Therefore, service connection is not warranted and the claim is denied. TDIU TDIU may be assigned, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities include stroke rated 100 percent disabling from January 31, 2017 and continuing thereafter; migraine headaches rated 50 percent disabling from January 31, 2017 and continuing thereafter; right upper extremity muscle rigidity rated 40 percent disabling from January 31, 2017 and continuing thereafter; right inguinal hernia rated 30 percent disabling from July 31, 2013 and continuing thereafter; right femoral nerve damage rated 20 percent disabling from July 31, 2013 and continuing thereafter; right lower extremity muscle rigidity rated 20 percent disabling from January 31, 2017 and continuing thereafter; right ilioinguinal nerve damage rated 10 percent disabling from July 31, 2013 and continuing thereafter; right lower abdomen surgical scar rated noncompensable and erectile dysfunction rated noncompensable. The Veteran has met the schedular requirement under 4.16(a). As noted above, the Board granted service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension and tinnitus but ratings have yet to be assigned by the RO. The remaining question concerns whether the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The fact that a veteran is unemployed or has difficulty finding employment does not warrant assignment of a TDIU alone as a high rating itself establishes that his disability makes it difficult for him to obtain and maintain employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). Rather, the evidence must show that he is incapable “of performing the physical and mental acts required” to be employed. Id. Thus, the central question is “whether the veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability,” and not whether the Veteran could find employment. Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). A July 2016 VA treatment reflects the Veteran’s report of having been retired. In his August 2017 VA application for increased compensation based on unemployability, the Veteran indicated that his service-connected stroke and right inguinal hernia rendered him unemployable. The August 2019 non-VA examiner indicated that the Veteran’s service-connected migraine headaches impacted his ability to work because the Veteran could not look at a computer, talk on the phone, or be in noisy or bright light environments. The December 2019 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran’s stroke resulted in cognitive and memory impairment and that the Veteran experienced trouble concentrating and focusing during conversations. The Board will grant a TDIU based on the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. Although the Veteran has been retired, two medical examiners have indicated that the Veteran’s service-connected migraine headaches and stroke impacted his ability to work. Significantly, the Veteran has been rated 100 percent disabling since January 31, 2017. The Board will resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. Therefore, a TDIU is warranted and the claim is granted. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Cohen, 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.