Citation Nr: 21026965 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 16-27 662 DATE: May 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence does not show that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities prevented him from obtaining and maintaining a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the assignment of TDIU due to service-connected disabilities has not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had honorable active service with the United States Army from August 1982 to June 1994. In October 2018, the Board decision found that although the Veteran had not formally sought entitlement to a TDIU rating during the pendency of his appeal, the issue of TDIU had been raised by the record. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The October 2018 and March 2020, Board decisions remanded the issue of TDIU for further development. In July 2020, the RO sent a letter to request the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-8940 Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefit. See Subsequent Development Letter dated in July 2020. The VA received no response from the Veteran to the development letter. After a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), the claim is back before the Board. No other duty to notify or duty to assist issues have been raised. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Additionally, the Veteran has a duty to assist and cooperate with VA in developing evidence the duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). As to the remand, the Board finds that the foregoing reflects substantial compliance with the March 2020 remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Thus, the Board will adjudicate the claim currently on appeal. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) The Veteran contends that he has limited employability. See Correspondence April 2014. After a thorough review, the Board concludes the evidence does not support that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities prevented him from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment because the Veteran failed to provide information about his current employment and employment history. Entitlement to TDIU requires the presence of impairment so severe that it is impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. In reaching such a determination, the central inquiry is "whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability." See Hatlestead v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Consideration may be given to the Veteran's level of education, special training and previous work experience in arriving at a conclusion, but not to age or to impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. Where the schedular rating is less than total, a total disability rating for compensation purposes may be assigned when the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, or if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). The Veteran has a combined evaluation for compensation of 90 percent from February 15, 2011 to December 4, 2013, and a 100 percent since December 4, 2013. Therefore, the Veteran meets the basic eligibility for TDIU. However, the Board was not able to find that the Veteran was unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities. In April 2019, the Veteran reported to his medical provider that he had an occupation working with adults with addiction. See CAPRI received January 2020. An inquiry to Social Security Administration found no medical records. See SSA/SSI Letter received March 2019. Additionally, as noted above, the RO sent the Veteran a letter in July 2020 to request the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-8940 Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefit. See Subsequent Development Letter dated in July 2020. The VA received no response from the Veteran to the development letter. While the VA system is non-adversarial and pro-claimant, a Veteran still has an obligation to assist in developing his or her claim. Indeed, it is well-established that "[t]he duty to assist is not always a one-way street." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Therefore, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) regarding reasonable doubt are not applicable. The claim of entitlement to service connection for TDIU must be denied. R. Erdheim Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Associate Counsel, C. Parnell 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. R. Erdheim Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Associate Counsel, C. Parnell 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.