Citation Nr: 21031148 Decision Date: 05/20/21 Archive Date: 05/20/21 DOCKET NO. 15-34 811 DATE: May 20, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a degenerative joint disease of the thoracolumbar spine is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for lower right extremity peripheral neuropathy is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for lower left extremity peripheral neuropathy is dismissed. A rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from March 3, 2012, to February 5, 2017, is granted. A rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD as of February 6, 2017, is denied. A total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On April 7, 2021, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant, through his authorized representative, that a withdrawal of the appeal for service connection for a degenerative joint disease of the thoracolumbar spine and bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is requested. 2. Throughout the period on appeal, the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's PTSD symptoms did more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. 3. The severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's PTSD symptoms did not more closely approximate total occupational and social impairment. 4. The competent and probative evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the impairment caused by the Veteran's service-connected disabilities precluded substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant or his authorized representative for service connection for a degenerative joint disease of the thoracolumbar spine are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant or his authorized representative for service connection for lower right extremity peripheral neuropathy are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant or his authorized representative for service connection for lower left extremity peripheral neuropathy are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 4. The criteria for a disability rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for PTSD from March 3, 2012, to February 5, 2017, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 5. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD are not met as of February 6, 2017. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 6. The criteria for a TDIU are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1965 to August 1967. An appellant, or an appellant's authorized representative, may withdraw an appeal as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a final decision. 38C.F.R. §20.205. Here, the Veteran's representative withdrew the claims of service connection for a degenerative joint disease of the thoracolumbar spine and bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy on this appeal in the April 2021 Appellate Brief; hence, no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration remain as to the service connection issues. The Board, accordingly, does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of service connection for a degenerative joint disease of the thoracolumbar spine and bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, and the claims are dismissed. The remaining issues of an increased rating for PTSD and entitlement to a TDIU is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2012 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Although an April 2017 rating decision granted an increased rating of 70 percent as of February 6, 2017, the issue remained in appellate status, as the maximum schedular rating had not been assigned for the entire period on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38-39 (1993). In April 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. The transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. In an April 2019 decision, the Board denied the claim of a rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected PTSD from March 3, 2012, to February 5, 2017, and in excess of 70 percent as of February 6, 2017. The Veteran appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which vacated the Board's April 2019 decision in an April 2020 Order. In an accompanying Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the parties agreed that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its findings. Specifically, the parties agreed that the Board failed to ensure the satisfaction of the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(1)(B) and obtain all pertinent records from the Boise Vet Center, failed to address the relevant evidence relating to the entire appeal period, and erred regarding its discussion and evaluation of the Veteran's reports of nearly daily passive thoughts for years about suicide. All pertinent records have since been associated with the Veteran's file. Increased Rating 1. PTSD. The Veteran's representative contends that the Veteran's PTSD warrants a 100 percent disability rating for the entire period on appeal. Alternatively, he argued that a 70 percent rating and a grant of a TDIU are warranted. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings, which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, VA will assign the higher evaluation if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, it will assign the lower rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. VA resolves any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where a claimant appeals the denial of a claim for an increased disability rating for a disability for which service connection was in effect before he filed the claim for increase, the present level of disability is the primary concern, and past medical reports should not be given precedence over current medical findings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 57-58 (1994). Nevertheless, where the evidence contains factual findings that show a change in the severity of symptoms during the rating period on appeal, the Board can assign different or "staged" ratings for such different periods. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-510 (2007). In evaluating a disability, the current examination reports in light of the whole recorded history are considered to ensure that the current rating accurately reflects the severity of the disorder. The medical and industrial history are to be considered, and a full description of the disability's effects upon ordinary activity is also required. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10. Under the General Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula), the Board must conduct a "holistic analysis" that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017); 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The Board must determine whether unlisted symptoms are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to the listed symptoms associated with specific disability percentages. Then, the Board must determine whether the associated symptoms, both listed and unlisted, caused the level of impairment required for a higher disability rating. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 114-118 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A 30 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, or mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, or recent events), cause occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and normal conversation). A 50 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships cause occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. A 70 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); or inability to establish and maintain effective relationships cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. A 100 percent rating is assigned for total occupational and social impairment due to such symptoms as gross impairment in thought processes or communication, persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene), disorientation to time or place, or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation or own name. Veterans are competent to report observable symptoms in the realm of their personal knowledge. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for VA benefits is set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Under that provision, VA shall consider all information, including lay and medical evidence of record, in a case before the Secretary concerning benefits under laws the Secretary administers. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57-58 (1990). The Board concludes that the Veteran's symptoms did not cause the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 100 percent. Throughout the period on appeal, the Veteran's symptoms more closely approximated the symptoms associated with a 70 percent rating and resulted in a level of impairment that most closely resembled the level of impairment associated with a 70 percent rating. The Veteran's partner since 1990 provided a statement in May 2012 stating the Veteran breaks down in uncontrollable crying when he discusses Vietnam; the Veteran told her he wished he was dead or that he died in Vietnam instead of his men. She noted he does not like to leave home anymore, not even for activities he once enjoyed, like riding horses or camping. He does not shower or shave half of the time, and he is drinking and smoking too much. In a June 2012 VA 21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran described his difficulty with personal relationships, inability to tolerate funerals, preference for withdrawing to home, hypervigilance, difficulty driving in traffic, constant anxiety, intolerance of fireworks or war movies, constant intrusive thoughts, and suicidal thoughts and ideations. He notes he is easily startled and lives in a remote area where he can feel safe but still sleeps with a firearm under his pillow. He said that in 1978 he attempted suicide by driving into a power pole. Mental health counseling notes from March 2012 through October 2012 demonstrate regular attendance of therapeutic sessions. These notes reflect the Veteran's struggles with anxiety, depression, intrusive thoughts, and alcohol abuse. During these sessions, the licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) consistently observed the Veteran be pleasant, cooperative, alert, and oriented to person, place, and time. The LCSW regularly noted that the Veteran had good eye contact; linear, logical, and goal-directed thinking; normal speech rate; and relatively euthymic, appropriate, and a full range of emotion. He consistently denied suicidal or homicidal ideation or active psychotic material. The October 2012 VA examiner determined the Veteran's increased symptomology is at least as likely as not caused by the anxiety of his cancer diagnosis, then notification of no cancer, while still having elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen levels. His alcohol abuse was a chronic coping skill for his PTSD symptoms; thus, part of his PTSD symptomology. He reported an increase in his symptoms of anger, irritability, chronic sleep impairment, nightmares, concentration and focus impairment, loss of interest in things he used to like, hypervigilance, suspicion, daily thoughts of the young soldiers he killed, crying, and social isolation. The Veteran reported that fireworks, hunting, and Chinese food trigger him. The examiner found he had moderate to severe social functioning impairment and had mild to moderate occupational functioning impairment in his last job. The examiner determined the Veteran was likely able to work at the feedlot for the longest, as he was left alone and did not have to interact with others. The examiner noted the Veteran is greatly distressed about the increase in his PTSD symptoms and is motivated to continue treatment to function better. In an April 2013 VA 21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran explained his PTSD caused difficulty controlling anger; made him feel nervous, trapped, and threatened in crowds; and made him uneasy and anxious around trees and brush. A November 2013 VA examiner noted the Veteran's current global assessment of functioning (GAF) score was 53, reflecting mild persistent PTSD symptoms, moderate alcohol dependence symptoms, moderate depressive symptoms, and moderate difficulty in social and occupational functioning. His PTSD symptoms appeared less severe than they were at the October 2012 VA examination, but the November 2013 VA examiner noted the Veteran's alcohol consumption increased, contributing to significant depressive symptoms. Thus, despite a decrease in the configuration and intensity of PTSD symptoms, his overall functioning did not improve. The examiner determined the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care, and conversation. The Veteran started treatment of sertraline, an antidepressant, in January 2013. The Veteran reported he noticed that his symptoms were getting better, but then it seemed it was not working as well after a while. He was oriented to person, place, time, and situation, dressed casually and well-groomed. His manner was friendly and cooperative; eye contact was good; speech volume, rate, and tone were within normal limits. He had a somber mood, congruent affect, logical and non-tangential thought process, and responsive thought content without delusions, paranoia, or symptoms of psychosis. No suicidal or homicidal ideations were present. His responses suggest that he is easily angered, has difficulty controlling the expression of his anger, and others likely perceive him as having a hostile, angry temperament. In January 2014, the Veteran provided a notice of disagreement, stating he felt the 50 percent criteria more accurately reflects his current PTSD symptoms. In an accompanying letter, the Veteran described his worsening PTSD symptoms: crowds and traffic upset him, he hates leaving home, he neglects his appearance, he cannot control his thoughts, he is forgetful, and his flashbacks from Vietnam are increasing. The Veteran did express gratitude for his family, particularly his understanding partner. The Vet Center individual counseling notes from December 2012 through September 2016, associated with the record in April 2021, demonstrate continued struggles with alcohol abuse, difficulty sleeping, intrusive thoughts, and anger. The Veteran consistently denied suicidal ideations throughout his time in individual counseling at the Vet Center, except in December 2012, where he admitted to occasional suicidal ideations. However, the Veteran denied having a plan to commit suicide. He denied any increase in suicidal ideations and stated he would never commit suicide because of his family; he talked about his partner and how proud he is of his daughter. A note from March 2013 indicates the Veteran experienced anger outbursts once per week. He described his PTSD symptoms with a particular focus on intrusive memories, nightmares, depression, hypervigilance, and hyperarousal (especially in traffic). Mental health counseling notes from October through December 2016 demonstrate an LCSW observed the Veteran as pleasant, cooperative, alert, and oriented, and as having good eye contact; linear, logical, and goal-directed thinking; normal rate of speech; and a relatively euthymic, appropriate, and full range of emotion. The Veteran denied suicidal or homicidal ideations or active psychotic material. An LCSW determined the Veteran posed a low level of risk to harm himself or others. His relationship with his partner was noted as going well, and he reported keeping busy taking care of his horses. The March 2017 VA examiner found PTSD resulted in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, and mood. The examiner observed the Veteran presented early to his evaluation and was polite and open regarding his experiences and symptoms. He was dressed in weather-appropriate clothing. He had a dysthymic and anxious mood, flattened affect, logical and linear thought process, and depressed thought content. The Veteran reported that the medications he has been taking for approximately two years had helped some, but his drinking has increased over the past 3-4 years. The Veteran reported drinking about half a gallon of whiskey every four days, and his alcohol use causes conflict with his partner and has led to altercations and social problems with others. The March 2017 VA examiner noted the Veteran's PTSD symptoms as hypervigilance, intrusive memories, avoidance of feeling and memories associated with the traumatic event, pessimism, persistent negative emotional state, negative beliefs or expectations, irritability, sleep problems, nightmares, detachment, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks, mild memory loss, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work-like setting, and suicidal ideation. The symptoms attributable to PTSD and alcohol use disorder were depressed mood, difficulty understanding complex commands, difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, impaired impulse control with periods of violence, and neglect of personal appearance and hygiene. The Veteran's symptoms specific to alcohol use disorder were tolerance, cravings, withdrawal, social and occupational problems, unsuccessful efforts to cut back, failure to fulfill role obligations due to use, and excessive time spent obtaining, using, and withdrawing from use. The examiner noted the Veteran uses alcohol to self-medicate symptoms of PTSD; the symptoms of each diagnosis exacerbate the signs of the other. A November 2018 VA nursing assessment observed the Veteran's mental status within normal limits, and he was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and current events, but also noted he overestimates and forgets his limitations. During the April 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified to having a pretty good relationship with his partner; however, his drinking has a negative impact about once a month, and he does not like to leave home. Various preventive medicine VA treatment notes from November 2018 through June 2020 indicated the Veteran repeatedly answered "no" to the question "[d]o you have significant stress in your life that you would like to discuss with a mental health provider?" In April 2021, a private physician opined that the Veteran has been completely disabled and unable to maintain meaningful employment since at least October 2008, when he stopped working full-time due to his PTSD. His prominent daily intrusive thoughts, nightmares, irritability, and frequent conflicts with others, and other active symptoms of PTSD have prevented him from working in even a setting where he is working with a friend or primarily had to deal with animals. She found his severe symptoms of PTSD and social isolation have also led to his complete disability. There is no basis for a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD under any applicable criteria. In reaching this decision, the Board notes the Veteran's last VA examination to determine the severity of his PTSD was conducted in March 2017. However, in this case, the Board finds that the March 2017 VA examination and testing is adequate and provides an accurate picture of the Veteran's disability picture from his service-connected PTSD and enables the Board to rate the disability. In this regard, the Board notes that VA treatment records and private records dating through 2021 have been reviewed, but these do not show any complaints or treatment relating to PTSD other than to monitor his condition. Neither the Veteran nor the representative argue that the Veteran's PTSD has increased in severity since the last examination. Therefore, the Board finds a new examination is not warranted at this time. VA and private treatment records, the October 2012, November 2013, and March 2017 VA examinations, and the Veteran's and his partner's lay statements show that the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by symptoms associated with a 70 percent rating or lower ratings, e.g., depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, flattened affect, impaired judgment, disturbances of motivation and mood, impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence), neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting), and occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. Although the Veteran was not found to be at risk for suicide during the period on appeal, there was evidence of passive suicidal ideation. The Veteran displayed no symptoms associated with a 100 percent rating during the period. The record contains no evidence of total occupational and social impairment, gross impairment in thought processes or communication, persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene), disorientation to time or place, or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Indeed, the Veteran was regularly found to be cooperative and pleasant and has a good relationship with his family. The Board notes that the Veteran expressed suicidal ideation, which is similar to the persistent danger of self-harm, which the 100 percent criteria contemplates. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 19 (2017). However, the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's suicidal ideation have not risen to the level contemplated by the 100 percent disability rating. The Veteran regularly denied thoughts, intent, or a plan involving self-harm in existing treatment records. While a 70 percent rating is warranted for the entire period on appeal, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's symptoms resulted in the level of impairment required for a 100 percent rating. The criteria for a 100 percent or higher rating are not met, and the appeal must be denied. TDIU 2. Entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran's representative contends a TDIU is warranted. He contends the Veteran's severe PTSD symptoms have prevented him from working. A TDIU may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, where a veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due to service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). To qualify for schedular consideration of a TDIU, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall 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. Id. The phrase "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" contains both economic and non-economic components. See Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019). The economic component refers to an occupation earning more than marginal income (outside of a protected environment) as determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the poverty threshold for one person. Id. The non-economic component requires a determination as to a veteran's ability to secure and follow such employment. Id. Attention should be given to the veteran's history, education, skills, and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability (both exertional and non-exertional) to perform the types of activities the occupation at issue requires (e.g., lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, as well as auditory and visual limitations); and whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue (e.g., memory, concentration, ability to adapt to change, handle workplace stress, get along with coworkers, and demonstrate reliability and productivity). Id. An award of TDIU is an individualized determination specific to a veteran's particular circumstances, e.g., their history, education, skills, and training. See Todd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 79, 85 (2014). It does not require a showing of 100 percent unemployability. Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The ultimate question is whether they can perform the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether they can find employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). The Veteran has the following service-connected disabilities: prostate cancer (rated 100 percent, from February 19, 2008, to October 1, 2012); lung cancer (rated 100 percent as of March 9, 2020); PTSD (rated 30 percent from July 15, 1999, to March 2, 2012, and 70 percent as of March 3, 2012); tinnitus (rated 10 percent as of November 21, 2012); and hearing loss (as of November 21, 2012). The percentage threshold for a schedular TDIU was met as of March 3, 2012, until March 8, 2020. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. Accordingly, the Board may consider the claim for a TDIU on a schedular basis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). After resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, a review of the record demonstrates the competent and probative evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities rendered him unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. The record demonstrates that the Veteran completed some high school, and he last worked in October 2008 at a feedlot. In the VA Form 21-8940 received in April 2021, the Veteran notes his difficulty controlling his temper was why he could no longer work at the feedlot. The October 2012 VA examination notes the Veteran reported losing his job at a car dealership because he "blew up at some guys at work," and he could not take the personality of a man who hired him to be his driver, but he felt comfortable working at the feedlot. He worked at the feedlot from 2003 to 2004 and from 2006 to 2008 until the economic downturn forced the feedlot to downsize. The October 2012 examiner noted the Veteran's PTSD symptoms also worsened in 2008 following added anxiety brought by his prostate cancer diagnosis. The examiner noted that the Veteran has difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships and opined that the Veteran was likely able to work at the feedlot for the longest as he was left alone and did not have to interact with others. The November 2013 VA examiner noted others perceive the Veteran as having a hostile, angry temperament, and those around him are likely intimidated by his potentially explosive temper and the potential for physical violence. The most recent VA examination for PTSD in March 2017 demonstrates continued occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work. The mental effects of the Veteran's PTSD impact his ability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation, especially his uncontrollable temper and substance abuse, which the record demonstrates worsened in 2008 after the diagnosis of his service-connected prostate cancer, which coincided with his retirement from the feedlot. Further, prior to his retirement in 2008, before he experienced increased anxiety, the feedlot position was the only employment he was able to maintain for an extended period, as his PTSD symptoms did not interfere with his work, given its rare solitary nature. (Continued on the next page) Given the preceding, the Veteran's service-connected PTSD has precluded him from the ability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation consistent with his education, skills, training, and work history during the period he is statutorily eligible for a TDIU, March 3, 2012, to March 8, 2020. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Accordingly, a TDIU is warranted. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Costa, 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.