Citation Nr: 21023678 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 15-18 947 DATE: April 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for headaches is remanded. Entitlement to total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from July 1973 to July 1976. In December 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned, and a transcript of that hearing is of record. In April 2019, the Board remanded the issue for further development. 1. Increased rating for headaches is remanded. Unfortunately, another remand is required. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. The April 2019 Board remand instructed the AOJ to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of the service-connected headache disability. The Veteran was subsequently scheduled for a VA examination in December 2019, to which he failed to report. However, it is unclear whether the Veteran was notified of his examination. Indeed, it appears from VA correspondence dated in July 2020 that it was “hard to tell” whether an examination was actually scheduled prior to the no show notification. In light of these circumstances, and affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the remand directives, and corrective action is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that where the remand of the Board or the Court is not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance). In doing so, the Board reminds the Veteran that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. When called upon to participate in an examination, it is incumbent upon the claimant to fully cooperate. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. Entitlement to total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is an element of all increased rating claims. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) holding in Rice, as well as the evidence of record, the Board has amended the issues on appeal to include entitlement to a TDIU as reflected above. The Veteran’s employment history is unclear. In an April 2012 private treatment record, the Veteran indicated that he had not worked since 2011. In an April 2015 private treatment record, the Veteran indicated that he was employed part time in cleaning work and had a small business “of this nature” for the past 10 years. In the December 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that he had been “relieved from a job” on several occasions, but did not specify a time period when this occurred. As such, the Board is unable to ascertain the Veteran’s employment history and remand for clarification and development is necessary. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16; Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The severity of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, his employment history, his education and training, and all other factors having a bearing on the matter must be developed and considered. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current level of severity of the service-connected headaches. The examiner should review the claims file and should note that review in the report. Based on this review, the examiner is asked to provide an assessment of the current nature of the headache disability, including all symptoms attributable to the condition and their severity. The examiner should also describe the functional impact of the headaches. A thorough rationale should be provided for all opinions expressed. If any requested medical opinion cannot be given, the examiner should state the reason(s) why. (Continued on the next page)   2. Send the Veteran a VCAA notice for entitlement to a TDIU and any related development (such as a VA Form 21-8940). H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Nelson 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.