Citation Nr: 21025718 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 726 DATE: April 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to initial ratings in excess of 50 percent prior to March 4, 2019, and in excess of 70 percent from that date for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to August 3, 2019, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1987 to April 1991. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2011 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Addressing the relevant procedural history, this case was previously before the Board in May of 2018 at which time it was remanded for additional development, to specifically include affording the Veteran the opportunity to attend an examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected psychiatric disability and to complete a VA Form 21-8940. This case has now been returned to the Board for further adjudication. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent prior to March 4, 2019, and in excess of 70 percent from that date for PTSD is remanded. Additional evidence, to include VA treatment records and a May 2020 VA PTSD examination, was associated with the record since the RO most recently adjudicated this appeal in an April 2019 supplemental statement of the case. That evidence is relevant to the issue of entitlement to higher initial ratings for PTSD. The Veteran has not waived initial consideration by the RO of the additional relevant evidence. Therefore, the issue must be remanded so that the RO may consider the additional evidence in the first instance and issue a supplemental statement of the case as to the appeal. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.37, 20.1305(c). 2. Entitlement to TDIU prior to August 3, 2019, is remanded. In this case, the Board is unable to determine from the current evidence of record whether the Veteran has been gainfully employed for the entirety of the appellate period. For example, the Veteran’s spouse reported in an October 2009 letter that the Veteran “had to quit a very well paying job because he could not deal with the stress and the driving”. See October 2009 Third Party Correspondence. March 2010 VA treatment notations indicate that the Veteran reported “having to deal with not having a job”. The Board also recognizes a November 2009 letter from the Veteran’s parents indicating that “although he managed to hold a job for several years he eventually left d[ue] to his inability to tolerate the stress that he encountered.” As such, the Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the Veteran’s TDIU claim until the case is remanded so that an updated earnings statement can be obtained from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and associated with the Veteran’s claims file in order to clarify exactly when the Veteran did and did not (if at all) have gainful employment throughout the period on appeal. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact SSA and request the Veteran’s earning statements from 2008 through the present. If SSA responds that it cannot provide earnings statements to VA without the Veteran’s approval, undertake the necessary actions to obtain any documentation needed from the Veteran to enable VA to obtain an updated copy of his SSA earnings statements. 2. After completion of the above, review the expanded record, including the evidence entered since the April 2019 supplemental statement of the case, and determine whether the benefits sought may be granted. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case. A reasonable period should be allowed for response before the appeal is returned to the Board. T. J. ANTHONY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Smith, 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.