Citation Nr: 21032827 Decision Date: 05/28/21 Archive Date: 05/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-38 281 DATE: May 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities prior to February 1, 2014, is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) due to being housebound prior to February 1, 2014, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1976 to June 1979. This matter again comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal originally from September 2012 and November 2015 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In an April 2020 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to TDIU and SMC benefits effective February 1, 2014. The Board found that the claims for entitlement to a TDIU and SMC were raised by the record and under the Board's jurisdiction. The Board then remanded this matter in June 2020. See June 2020 Board Decision. As a preliminary matter, the Board acknowledges that the RO issued a rating decision in April 2021 that granted service connection benefits with compensable disability evaluations. Because these grants could impact the schedular rating criteria for both entitlement to a TDIU and to SMC prior to February 1, 2014, the Board finds that these matters should be remanded in light of the RO's April 2021 rating decision for readjudication. 1. Entitlement to a TDIU due to service-connected disabilities prior to February 1, 2014 is remanded. In the Veteran's VA Form 21-8940, Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, the Veteran reported that he worked for two employers: one from 2006 to 2010, and one from 2010 to 2013. The Veteran stated that he last worked full time July 31, 2013. See January 2019 VA Form 21-8940. The VA then mailed VA Forms 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability, to the Veteran's former employers listed on his VA From 21-8940. One letter was returned to VA stating that the Veteran had not been employed by one of the companies, Wyndham Garden. See May 2019 VA Form 21-4192. Additionally, in a VA Form 21-4138, the Veteran stated that this employer was no longer in operation and the facility was permanently closed. See June 2019 VA Form 21-4138. Because the evidence of record does not confirm the Veteran's employment after working for SPC Corporation (the Veteran's 2006-2010 employer), the Board finds that additional evidence confirming the Veteran's employment, including from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and/or Internal Revenue System (IRS) regarding said employment from 2010 to February 1, 2014, should be obtained and associated with the claims file. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). The requests to complete a VA Form 21-4192 to the Veteran's other employer, SPC Corporation, were returned twice. See May 2019 Returned Mail; June 2019 Returned Mail. Any attempts to obtain the correct address SPC Corporation are not of record. On remand, the Board requests that SPC Corporation's address and other contact information be confirmed so that information regarding the Veteran's employment, including information as to whether the Veteran received any accommodations at work due to his service-connected disabilities, be obtained. Although the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has been receiving SSA benefits effective February 1, 2014, the Board notes that employment status is not the same as being unemployable pursuant to VA regulations. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991). Therefore, the Board finds that on remand it must be determined whether the Veteran, regardless of employment status, was obtaining and/or maintaining substantially gainful employment or marginal employment prior to February 1, 2014. 2. Entitlement to SMC due to being housebound prior to February 1, 2014 is remanded. Because the Veteran has been receiving SMC benefits in connection with his 100 percent disability evaluation which includes his TDIU benefits, the Board finds that the issue of entitlement to SMC prior to February 1, 2014, is inextricably intertwined with the issue of entitlement to TDIU prior to February 1, 2014. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that the issue of entitlement to SMC due to being housebound prior to February 1, 2014, should also be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should confirm the Veteran's employment after SPC Corporation, to include contacting the IRS and SSA, for records as to where the Veteran worked. After confirmation, the RO should send said employer(s) a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability, and allow a reasonable period of time for response regarding the Veteran's employment, including dates of employment and any and all accommodations made during employment for the Veteran's service-connected disabilities. 2. The RO should confirm the current contact information for SPC Corporation. After confirmation, the RO should send SPC Corporation a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability, and allow a reasonable period of time for response regarding the Veteran's employment, including any and all accommodations made during his employment with SPC Corporation due to his service-connected disabilities. Any and all actions to obtain SPC Corporation's current contact information must be documented in the claims file. 3. Then, readjudicate the issues of entitlement to a TDIU prior to February 1, 2014 and entitlement to SMC prior to February 1, 2014. 4. If any of the above-sought benefits are denied, the RO should issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) to the Veteran and his representative. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response before returning the appeal to the Board. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Seserman 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.