Citation Nr: 21021782 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-07 729 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1971 to August 1974. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Waco, Texas. In November 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board video-conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. The issue on appeal was previously before the Board in January 2020, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim and to afford him every possible consideration. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The record reflects that the Veteran was awarded disability benefits by the Social Security Administration (SSA) at least as early as 2010. VA treatment records and testimony at the November 2019 Board hearing suggest that he may have been awarded such benefits due, at least in part, to his service-connected duodenal ulcer. Thus far, it does not appear that any attempt has been made to obtain a complete copy of the medical records underlying the SSA’s award. Because the records from SSA could contain information pertinent to the issue on appeal, efforts should be made to procure them. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). The record also reflects that the Veteran applied for VA vocational rehabilitation and education (VR&E) benefits in February 2018. His VR&E folder has likewise not been associated with the electronic claims file. As his VR&E folder could contain information relevant to the TDIU claim, efforts should be made to procure that as well. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the SSA to provide copies of any relevant records in its possession pertaining to its consideration of the Veteran’s application for SSA benefits, to particularly include any relevant medical records considered, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Efforts to obtain the evidence should be fully documented and should be discontinued only if it is concluded that the evidence sought does not exist or that further efforts to obtain the evidence would be futile. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. If any of the records sought are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect that fact, and the Veteran and his representative should be notified. 2. Take action to obtain and associate with the record a copy of the Veteran’s complete VA VR&E folder. Efforts to obtain the evidence should be fully documented and should be discontinued only if it is concluded that the evidence sought does not exist or that further efforts to obtain the evidence would be futile. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. If any of the records sought are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect that fact, and the Veteran and his representative should be notified. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Kettler, 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.