Citation Nr: 21028239 Decision Date: 05/10/21 Archive Date: 05/10/21 DOCKET NO. 15-42 510 DATE: May 10, 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 March 2003 to August 2004, and from May 2007 to May 2008, to include service in Kuwait and Iraq. He also had service in the Army National Guard, to include a period of active duty for training from March 2000 to August 2000 and full-time duty under 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) from March 2009 to May 2012. His decorations include the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri. In March 2019, the Board remanded the issue currently on appeal 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. See September 2020 supplemental statement of the case. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. 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. In October 2019, in accordance with the remand issued by the Board and VA's duties to notify and assist, VA sent the Veteran a VA Form 21-8940 (Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability) in order to obtain the information needed to adjudicate his entitlement to a TDIU. See October 2019 development letter. In August 2020, he was again invited to submit the VA Form 21-8940. See August 2020 development letter. To date, he has not completed and returned the form or provided the equivalent information. The information requested by the AOJ is necessary for a proper adjudication of the Veteran's claim because the evidence of record is insufficient to allow VA to determine whether and when during the period on appeal the Veteran was unemployed. When the Veteran filed his original VA Form 21-8940 in May 2013, he reported that he last worked full time in May 2012. However, during a July 2017 VA PTSD examination, it was noted that he reported discontinuing his employment with a waterproofing and restoration company in August/September 2016. That report calls his work status after May 2012 into question. Because the Veteran may not have fully understood the importance of completing and returning another VA Form 21-8940 (because he had submitted one previously), the Board is inclined to remand the case and afford him another opportunity to do so. In that regard, The Veteran is reminded that VA's duty to assist in the development and adjudication of his claim is not a one-way street. Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517, 522 (1996). If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential to the outcome of his claim. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193, recon. denied, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991) (per curiam). If he is to have a reasonable opportunity to prevail on his claim, he must respond with specificity to VA's requests for additional information. Otherwise, his claim may be denied. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran again to complete and return a VA Form 21-8940 (Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability), providing a summary of any employment he has engaged in since May 2012. 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the action taken in the preceding paragraph, the Veteran's claim 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 J. Ragheb, 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.