Citation Nr: 21022201 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 16-10 191 DATE: April 15, 2021 ORDER An initial 100 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since January 12, 2011, is granted. A total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) since January 12, 2011, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s PTSD caused total social and occupational impairment since January 12, 2011. 2. The Veteran’s service-connected right ring finger fracture residuals did not prevent him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a rating of 100 percent, since January 12, 2011, for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.326(a), 4.7, 4.14, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 2. The criteria for TDIU since January 12, 2011, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.326(a), 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1983 to September 1983 and from March 2003 to May 2004. He also served in the Army National Guard. He served in Southwest Asia. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating of more than 70 percent for PTSD since January 12, 2011. Since January 12, 2011, the effective date of the grant of service connection for PTSD, the Veteran has had total occupational and social impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. He had suicidal ideation; homicidal ideation; angry and violent outbursts, including some resulted in domestic violence charges and a charge of intimidating a victim of a crime; nightmares; hypervigilance; sleep impairment; flashbacks; difficulty concentrating; memory impairment; depression; anxiety; suspiciousness; a poor relationship with his spouse and children; and neglect of personal appearance and hygiene. He regularly verbally and physically threatened other individuals, including VA staff, his family, and people in his community. His employment was terminated due to his symptoms and he was only able to work intermittently. The Veteran’s anger and outbursts caused a total impairment in his family relations, his employment, his daily functioning, and his treatment for PTSD. Therefore, the Board finds that a 100 percent rating is warranted for the entire period on appeal. The appeal is granted. 2. Entitlement to TDIU since January 12, 2011. The issue of entitlement to TDIU is on appeal pursuant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), because the Veteran has asserted that he was unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected PTSD. TDIU may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities. If there is only one such disability, that disability must be ratable at 60 percent or more. If there are two or more disabilities, there must 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). Even if service-connected disabilities fail to meet the percentage standards set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), referral to the Director, Compensation Service for extraschedular consideration of a TDIU is warranted if the veteran nonetheless is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). The Veteran is in receipt of a 100 percent schedular rating for PTSD since January 12, 2011. Because this rating is total, TDIU cannot be assigned based on that disability. The only other disability for which service connection is in effect is right ring finger fracture residuals, for which the Veteran has a noncompensable rating. There is no evidence that the right ring finger fracture residuals alone prevent the Veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation, and the Veteran has made no such argument. Therefore, TDIU is not warranted and the appeal is denied. Jacqueline E. Miller Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kuksova, Kseniya 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.