Citation Nr: 21014347 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 06-02 540 DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from February 1964 to February 1967. This issue comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2004 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). He testified at a Board hearing in February 2008. The Veterans Law Judge who conducted that hearing has since left the Board. The Veteran was notified of this but did not elect to have another hearing. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a TDIU, stating that he is unable to work as a result of his service-connected disabilities. The Board remanded this matter for additional development in September 2019. The Board noted in its February 2016 and September 2017 remands that the Veteran had previously filed a claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Specifically, the Veteran argued that his service-connected low back disability and associated radiculopathy aggravated his PTSD, and that PTSD also impaired his ability to work. The Board concluded that this pending PTSD claim was inextricably intertwined with the TDIU claim and twice instructed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to provide the Veteran with notice regarding his PTSD claim, and then appropriately develop and adjudicate it, which the AOJ failed to do. As a result, the Board remanded this matter to provide the Veteran with notice regarding the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, including as secondary to his service-connected back disability, undertake any appropriate development, and then adjudicate the claim for PTSD. In addition, the Board found that while the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities did not meet the schedular requirements for TDIU under 38C.F.R. §4.16(a), the evidence of record raises the possibility that he cannot work due to symptomatology associated with his service-connected back disability. The Board remanded this matter for referral for extraschedular consideration after adjudication of the PTSD claim if the Veteran still did not meet the schedular criteria for TDIU. Significantly, the AOJ failed to properly develop and adjudicate the PTSD claim. Specifically, the Board notes that the AOJ sent correspondence to the Veteran in August 2020, stating that the PTSD claim must be made on a standardized form in order to formalize the claim. However, the evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran has been informed that his claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD had already been accepted. Significantly, in a December 2019 letter, the Veteran was informed by VA that his claim for service connection for PTSD has been received. The Veteran's claim has been received by VA and no further submission on the Veteran's part is required to initiate development of this claim. A remand by the Board imposes upon the Secretary of VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. Where remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs in failing to insure compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Based on a review of the claims file, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with its previous remand directives. As such, the Board must remand this matter to provide the Veteran with proper notice regarding his PTSD claim, and then for the AOJ to appropriately develop and adjudicate it. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. 2. Conduct any evidentiary development suggested by the record in an attempt to support the Veteran's PTSD claim. 3. Thereafter adjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD and the claim of entitlement to TDIU. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.T. Massey, 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.