Citation Nr: 21041736 Decision Date: 07/10/21 Archive Date: 07/10/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 594A DATE: July 10, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating of 70 percent, but no higher, prior to August 27, 2015 for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 70 percent from August 27, 2015 forward for PTSD is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to August 27, 2015, the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by chronic sleep impairment, near-continuous panic or depression, unprovoked irritability with periods of violence, mild memory loss, suspiciousness, disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances; resulting in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. 2. From Prior to August 27, 2015 forward, the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by chronic sleep impairment, near-continuous panic or depression, unprovoked irritability with periods of violence, mild memory loss, suspiciousness, disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances; resulting in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an increased rating of 70 percent, but no higher, prior to August 27, 2015 for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 2. The criteria for an increased rating in excess of 70 percent from August 27, 2015 forward for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 2006 to August 2009. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in February 2014 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board most recently remanded the issues on appeal for additional development in November 2020. As to the increased rating claim, the requested medical examination and opinion was obtained in February 2021. As such, the directives have been substantially complied with as to that issue. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) at 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1. In evaluating the severity of a particular disability, it is essential to consider its history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary importance. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Nevertheless, the Board acknowledges that a claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The analysis in the following decision is therefore undertaken with consideration of the possibility that different ratings may be warranted for different time periods. If the evidence for and against a claim is in equipoise, the claim will be granted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. A claim will be denied only if the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56 (1990). Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability should be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the Veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126; see Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017). The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based upon all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment, rather than solely upon the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. Id. When evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. Id. The Veteran's PTSD is rated under Diagnostic Code 9411. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Diagnostic Codes 9201 through 9440 are rated using the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula). Under the General Formula, a 30 percent rating is assigned for 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 conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). Id. A 50 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms 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, impaired judgment, impaired abstract thinking, disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; 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 work-like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. 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 hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives and own occupation or name. Id. The "such symptoms as" language means "for example," and does not represent an exhaustive list of symptoms that must be found before granting the rating of that category. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). The list of examples provides guidance as to the severity of symptoms contemplated for each rating. Id. However, this fact does not make the provided list of symptoms irrelevant. See Vasquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 11617 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran must still demonstrate either the particular symptoms associated with the rating sought, or other symptoms of similar severity, frequency, and duration. Id. at 117. The Board notes that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, allowed for the assignment of Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores, which are a scale reflecting the psychological, social, and occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental health illness. However, VA regulations were amended to adopt the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), which eliminated the use of GAF scores for evaluating mental illness. 80 Fed. Reg. 14,308 (Mar. 19, 2015). As GAF scores are no longer held to be an effective method of evaluating the severity of psychiatric disabilities, the Board will not rely on any GAF scores in adjudicating the present claim. Golden v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 221, 22426 (2018). During the period on appeal, the Veteran has reported experiencing anxiety, irritability, memory and concentration issues, social isolation, and sleep impairment. The Veteran further reported that his irritability, anxiety, and memory issues made it difficult to succeed when getting his bachelor's degree and further interfere with his ability to interact with other people, whether that be fellow students or in other social settings. The Veteran's spouse also submitted a statement in August 2020, in which she reported knowing the Veteran for approximately five years. In the statement the spouse asserted that the Veteran experiences irritability, sleep impairment, and anxiety. The spouse's statement noted that the Veteran commonly becomes angry, at which time he will yell or occasionally break things. The spouse also reported that his symptoms generally result in social isolation, and that while he is willing to occasionally interact with neighbors and other acquaintances, he generally avoids strangers and crowds. The spouse further reported that while the Veteran has not been violent with her, he can be aggressive or violent with other people. Finally, the spouse indicated that Veteran will occasionally neglect his personal hygiene. Both the Veteran and his spouse are competent to report such lay-observable symptoms, and there is no evidence that the statements are not credible. Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372. As such, they are entitled to significant probative weight. During the period on appeal, the Veteran was provided with VA examinations in January 2014, March 2016, November 2019, and February 2021. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the January 2014, November 2019, and February 2021 examiners provided several different psychiatric diagnoses, but stated that they were unable to differentiate the symptoms associated with each. As such, all noted psychiatric symptoms in each of the reports will be attributed to the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181 (1998). During the January 2014 examination, the Veteran reported that he was single with no children, and that he was experiencing a decreased desire for contact with others. With respect to employment, the Veteran was incarcerated at the time of the examination, but had worked as a dishwasher prior to his incarceration. At the time of the examination, the Veteran reported that he was incarcerated for attempted murder and arson charges that occurred while he was blacked out due to PTSD. However, the examiner noted that a review of court and prison documents reflected that the Veteran previously reported drinking heavily at the time of his crimes, and therefore that the contemporaneous evidence reflected that alcohol consumption, not PTSD, was the root of the crimes. This finding is corroborated by the 2012 competency assessment contained in the file, in which the presiding medical professional noted that the Veteran drank heavily on the day of his crimes. The Veteran at no point in the court documents concerning his competency to stand trial indicated that his PTSD was the underlying reason for his crimes. The examiner noted symptoms of anxiety and sleep impairment, and that the Veteran's mood, affect, and speech were all normal. The examiner stated that there was no evidence of psychosis. Overall, the examiner stated that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress. In March 2016, the Veteran reported that he had been with his current girlfriend for one year, and had no children. Concerning his occupation, the Veteran reported that he was a full-time student and that he worked as a farmer during harvest season. Concerning his criminal history, the Veteran reported that he had served a prison sentence for attempted murder and arson. The Veteran explained that at the time of the crime he was dating a woman with a young child, both of whom had been physically assaulted by another man. The Veteran stated that he left to confront the other man, and that when he would not come out to face the Veteran set fire to the other man's home. The Veteran further stated that he returned home and set his own house on fire, at which point he realized what he had done and called the police himself. The Veteran did not indicate that his actions were in any way related to his PTSD. The examiner noted symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, chronic sleep impairment, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances including work or a worklike setting, and an inability to establish and maintain effective work and social relationships. The examiner noted that the Veteran was cooperative and well-groomed, and that his speech, eye contact, orientation, thought content and processes, insight, and judgment were all normal. The examiner noted that his mood was depressed and that his affect was flat. Overall, the examiner stated that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. In November 2019, the Veteran reported that he resided with his fiancée, who he had been in a relationship with for approximately four and a half years. The Veteran stated that their relationship was stable for the most part, with some rocky periods. Otherwise the Veteran reported that he socialized occasionally with others, but otherwise largely kept to himself. With respect to work, the Veteran reported that he was currently working on a bachelor's degree and planned to start work on a master's degree in 2021. The Veteran reported a history of disagreements with supervisors at jobs, and that he had been fired from several. The Veteran reported a history of a panic attack in 2018, chronic sleep impairment, irritability, and social isolation. The Veteran also stated that he had visual hallucinations in the form of "shadow people." Finally, the Veteran denied current homicidal or suicidal ideation, but acknowledged a history of a suicide attempt in 2010 and that he had gone to prison for attempted murder. The examiner noted symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks weekly or less often, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintain effective work and social relationships, suicidal ideation, and impaired impulse control. The examiner noted that the Veteran was well-groomed, with normal speech and behavior. The examiner noted that the Veteran became irritable, frustrated, or angry at times during the examination. Overall, the examiner stated that the Veteran had total social and occupational impairment. VA obtained an April 2020 addendum opinion addressing the more severe findings concerning the Veteran's overall impairment contained in the November 2019 examination. After a lengthy recitation of the evidence, the opining psychiatrist stated that they did not agree with the assessment of total social and occupational impairment contained in the November 2019 report. In support of this opinion, the psychiatrist noted that while the November 2019 examiner stated that there was total impairment the examiner did not appear to take into account the fact that all of the medical evidence reflected that the Veteran had reported numerous positive relationships, including with his significant other and family members. Further, the opining psychiatrist noted that the Veteran reported such relationships during the November 2019 examination itself. There is no evidence that the opining psychiatrist was not competent or credible, and further the opinion was supported by a well-reasoned rationale that contained direct citations to the medical evidence of record. As such, it is entitled to significant probative weight. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Finally, during the February 2021 examination the Veteran reported a five-and-a-half year relationship with his spouse and that he had two friends that he saw regularly. Occupationally, the Veteran stated that along with his wife he ran a 28-acre hemp farm, on which he engaged in a variety of everyday tasks including seeding, fueling machines, and tending plants. The Veteran further stated that he had received a bachelor's degree in May 2020 and that he was currently working on a master's degree. He reported that he had maintained a B average and was enthusiastic about school. The Veteran reported a history of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and hallucinations. However, the Veteran denied any current hallucinations, and further denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation. The Veteran further reported no issues with violence towards others since his release from prison, but also that he generally tried to avoid others to keep out of trouble. The examiner noted symptoms of anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, impairment of short- and long-term memory, difficulty in stablishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances. The examiner stated that the Veteran was well-dressed and groomed, pleasant, and cooperative. Affect, mood, thought processes, orientation, concentration, attention, insight, and judgment were all normal. The Veteran denied any homicidal or suicidal ideation. Overall, the examiner noted that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks. In reviewing prior assessments of record, the examiner stated that she concurred with the assessments of the January 2014 and March 2016 VA examiners, as well as that of the August 2015 private examiner discussed below. However, the examiner stated that she did not concur with the November 2019 examiner's assessment that the Veteran had a total social and occupational impairment. The examiner stated that this assessment was inconsistent with the fact that during the November 2019 examination the Veteran reported being in school, was planning on going to graduate school, was working on a farm with his wife, and had been in a stable relationships for the past four-and-a-half years. The examiner noted that these reports were also included in the other medical evidence of record. There is no evidence that the above examiners were either not competent or credible. Further, the January 2014, March 2016, and February 2021 assessments were all based on the Veteran's own reports of his symptoms and each examiner's own objective psychiatric examination. As such, the Board finds that each respective examination report is entitled to significant probative weight as to the severity of the Veteran's disability. Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. 295. As to the November 2019 opinion, as discussed in the April 2020 and February 2021 opinions, the examiner's overall conclusion that the Veteran has total occupational and social impairment is directly contradicted by the examiner's own notations concerning the Veteran's social functioning, as well as the other medical evidence of record. Further, the November 2019 examiner in no way reconciled the overall assessment with the Veteran's own reports of his social functioning. Thus, the Board finds that the November 2019 examiner's opinion that the Veteran has total social and occupational impairment is entitled to no probative weight. This finding, however, does not otherwise vitiate the probative value of the other information recorded in the course of the examination or the examiner's own observations of the Veteran's behavior, demeanor, and appearance. As such, the other findings contained in the November 2019 report are entitled to probative weight with respect to the severity of the Veteran's disability. Id. In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted an August 2015 private psychiatric evaluation. At the time the Veteran reported a three-month relationship with his girlfriend, but that he was otherwise socially withdrawn. Occupationally the Veteran stated that he had a history of odd jobs, but nothing since 2011. The examiner noted symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks more than once a week, near-continuous panic or depression, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, inability to establish and maintain effective relationships, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, obsessional rituals, persistent delusions or hallucinations, a persistent danger of hurting self or others, neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, and inability to perform activities of daily living. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported thinking about hurting other people all the time, and that he experienced hearing voices and seeing people who were not actually present. The examiner also noted that the Veteran reported a history of homicidal ideation while in prison, as well as difficulties with mood, suspiciousness, irritability, anger, and hypervigilance. Overall, the examiner noted occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. Prison treatment records from November 2012 to September 2013 consistently note normal grooming, orientation, eye contact, behavior, attitude, mood, affect, speech, and thought content and processes. The Veteran consistently denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation or hallucinations, and recent and remote memory was consistently noted to be intact. August 2012 records noted increased issues with irritability and mood variability, as well as anxiety and depression. A February 2013 record also noted issues with anxiety, depression, mood swings and insomnia. Records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) show that the Veteran reported chronic sleep impairment, anger, irritability, depression, and anxiety. A July 2015 mental health consultation following the Veteran's release from prison reflects that the Veteran reported being sad, anxious, and angry, with additional reports of intrusive thoughts and avoiding crowds. The examiner noted that the Veteran's appearance, speech, insight, and orientation were all normal, and that the Veteran denied any suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, and hallucinations. There was no evidence of delusions. Impulse control was noted to be impaired, and the Veteran's mood was anxious. An August 2015 consultation noted reports of intrusive memories, nightmares, irritability or angry outbursts and sleep impairment, as well as social withdrawal. The Veteran denied suicidal ideation but reported some homicidal ideation toward his mother's significant other with no intent to act on it. An October 2015 consultation noted normal speech, mood, insight, and judgment. Affect was mildly depressed, but the Veteran denied suicidal ideations, homicidal ideations, and hallucinations. There was no evidence of any delusions. An August 2016 record noted normal speech and mood, but that affect was mildly depressed. The Veteran denied suicidal or homicidal ideation, and judgment was fair. August 2017, September 2017, and October 2017 consultations noted the Veteran displayed normal behavior, speech, orientation, consciousness, mood, affect, appearance, thought content and processes, insight, and judgment. The Veteran reported a good relationship with his girlfriend in August 2017, as well as additional supportive relationships with his mother, aunt, uncle, paternal grandfather, and military and non-military friends in October 2017. During this period the Veteran reported some nightmares and irritability but generally indicated symptoms were improving, and further consistently denied suicidal and homicidal ideation and hallucinations. Finally, the Board notes that in support of his claim the Veteran's attorney has submitted articles concerning occupational impairment due to psychiatric disabilities among different veteran populations. However, these articles do not in any way deal with the specific facts of this Veteran's case or indicate that the Veteran's PTSD results in total occupational or social impairment, and instead only indicate that psychiatric disabilities generally may result in some degree of occupational impairment. Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 514 (1998); see Libertine v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 521, 523 (1996). As such, these articles are entitled to no probative weight. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that an increased rating of 70 percent, but no higher, prior to August 27, 2015 is warranted. The medical evidence of record, including the Veteran's treatment records, prison records and examinations reports, reflect that the Veteran has impaired impulse control with unprovoked irritability, anxiety, depression, and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances. Further, the evidence reflects that these symptoms have resulted in deficiencies with the respect to social and family relationships, schoolwork, and mood. Although the January 2014 examination report noted that the Veteran's overall occupational and social functioning more nearly approximated a 10 percent rating, given the type, frequency, and severity of the symptoms displayed during this period the Board finds that a 70 percent rating, but no higher, prior to August 27, 2015, is warranted in this case. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9411. However, an increased rating in excess of 70 percent is not warranted at any point during the period on appeal. All of the evidence reflects that the Veteran's behavior, orientation, thought processes, and speech have been normal during the period on appeal. While the Veteran has been noted to have mild memory impairment, there is no evidence that this impairment is so severe that the Veteran cannot remember closely held information such as his own name. Indeed, the evidence of record reflects that during examinations and consultations the Veteran was able to recall and provide detailed information about his life with seemingly no difficulty. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran's noted memory impairment does not more nearly approximate the level of severity contemplated by a 100 percent rating. The Board notes that the August 2015 private examiner stated that the Veteran was a persistent danger to himself and others. Further, the Board notes that the spouse's August 2020 statement indicated that the Veteran can be aggressive with other people, and that the Veteran reported some homicidal ideation in a VA mental health record and in his applicable for SSA benefits. However, the Veteran's prison records from 2012 to 2013 and VA treatment records from 2014 forward otherwise reflect that the Veteran has consistently denied any issues with homicidal ideation, intent or planning. The overall consistent denials of homicidal ideation contained in the treatment records are of particular probative weight as to the presence, or persistence, or any ideations during the period on appeal. White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 (1992) (finding that statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment are exceptionally trustworthy because the declarant has a strong motive to tell the truth in order to receive a proper diagnosis or treatment). Further, the Veteran denied homicidal ideations at each of the January 2014, March 2016, November 2019, and February 2021 VA examinations. As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has posed a persistent threat to others during the period on appeal. See MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 924 (11 ed. 2003) (defining persistent as existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously). Therefore, the Veteran's disability picture does not rise to the level of severity contemplated by a 100 percent rating, and instead is more nearly approximated by the assigned 70 percent rating contemplating unprovoked irritability with periods of violence. While the Veteran has also endorsed a history of a suicide attempt in 2010, the Veteran's prison and VA treatment records otherwise reflect that he has consistently denied any suicidal ideation, plan, or intent during the period on appeal. He likewise denied any ideation, plan, or intent during the January 2014, March 2016, November 2019, and February 2021 VA examinations. As such, the Veteran's report of a history of one suicide attempt does not rise to the level of severity contemplated by a 100 percent rating for a psychiatric disability. Id. The Board notes that the August 2015 private opinion also noted that the Veteran's disability was manifested by an intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living. However, all of the other medical records and examinations associated with the file reflect that the Veteran has consistently presented to evaluations well-groomed and with good hygiene. Further, examinations and treatment records reflect that the Veteran assists his spouse with operating a small farm, requiring that the Veteran attend to numerous tasks throughout the day. Finally, during the majority of the period on appeal the Veteran has been enrolled in a degree program. Thus, the Veteran demonstrated the ability to attend to the work and tasks associated with such courses of education, and do so well based on his report in February 2021 of maintaining a B average. In light of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a determination that the Veteran is unable attend to tasks of daily living. The August 2015 private opinion additionally noted that the Veteran experienced persistent delusions or hallucinations. However, treatment records otherwise reflect that the Veteran consistently denied any auditory or visual hallucinations, and further that on examination the Veteran displayed no delusions or impairment of thought content or processes. The Veteran also denied current hallucinations at the VA examinations. The treatment records reflecting consistent denials of hallucinations are of particular probative weight as to the present of hallucinations and their persistence throughout the period on appeal. White, 502 U.S. at 356. As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's disability is manifested by persistent hallucinations or delusions. MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 924 (11 ed. 2003) Finally, there is no evidence that the Veteran has total occupational and social impairment due to his PTSD. While the Board acknowledges that there is some question as to whether the Veteran has total occupational impairment, the evidence of record clearly establishes that the Veteran does not have total social impairment. The August 2020 statement from the Veteran's spouse clearly indicates that the Veteran is willing to socially interact with neighbors, albeit only intermittently. Further, the Veteran himself reported that he has good relationships with his mother, aunt, uncle, and grandmother and that he has friends from the military and his hometown in 2017 VA mental health consultations. The Veteran further reported at least some socialization, although limited, and a stable relationship with his now-wife during the period on appeal. While the November 2019 examiner stated that the Veteran had a total occupational and social impairment, as discussed above the examiner did not reconcile this finding with the Veteran's reports of familial and social relationships during the examination or the other evidence of record showing social relationships. As such, it is entitled to no probative weight. As the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's displayed symptoms result in total occupational and social impairment, a rating of 100 percent is not warranted in this case. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9411. The Board notes that the Veteran's attorney submitted a brief in support of the current appeal in May 2021. However, a review of the brief reflects that it is little more than a recitation of the evidence of record accompanied by a simple statement concluding that an increased rating is warranted. As the brief is devoid of any actual legal arguments or any application of the rating criteria to the evidence of record, the Board need not respond to it further. All potentially applicable diagnostic codes have been considered. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991). While the evidence of record supports a finding that a rating of 70 percent prior to August 27, 2015, is warranted, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that a rating in excess of 70 percent is warranted at any point during the period at issue. See Hart, 21 Vet. App. 505. For these reasons, the claim is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to a TDIU. The Board most recently remanded the current appeal in November 2020. In that remand, the Board requested that the RO obtain the Veteran's annual earned income from 2010 forward from either the Social Security Administration (SSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or another appropriate location. That same month, the RO associated with the file the results of an SSA inquiry for the Veteran, which simply stated that the Veteran's federal countable income was $20.61. However, the form provided no dates or years. Therefore, it is not clear from the document whether the sum of $20.61 reflects the Veteran's annual income for the entire period from 2010 forward, the year-to-date income as of the date it was created, or the prior year's federal countable income. There is no evidence any other attempts were made to verify the Veteran's annual earned income for the period at issue, nor was there any statement included in the file explaining why the requested information could not be obtained. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that there was not substantial compliance with the November 2020 remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As such, a remand is necessary so that further attempts may be made to verify the Veteran's annual income from 2010 forward, or so that an explanation can be provided as to why it is not possible to do so. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's annual earned income from 2010 to present from the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, or income verification from other reputable sources. If it is not possible to obtain the requested information, the RO should provide an explanation as to why the requested information cannot be obtained and associated with the file. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Wendell, 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.