Citation Nr: 22014654 Decision Date: 03/14/22 Archive Date: 03/14/22 DOCKET NO. 18-30 565 DATE: March 14, 2022 ORDER A rating in excess of 50 percent prior to November 17, 2017, and in excess of 70 percent from November 17, 2017 to July 23, 2021 for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. Entitlement to total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to July 23, 2021 is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For the appeal period prior to November 17, 2017, the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by symptomatology resulting in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, without more severe manifestations that more nearly approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, or total occupational and social impairment. 2. From November 17, 2017 to July 23, 2021, the Veteran's PTSD is manifested by symptomatology resulting in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, without more severe manifestations that more nearly approximate total occupational and social impairment. 3. Prior to July 23, 2021, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation consistent with his education and work history. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a rating in excess of 50 percent prior to November 17, 2017, and in excess of 70 percent from November 17, 2017 to July 23, 2021, for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9411. 2. Prior to July 23, 2021, the criteria for TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1966 to July 1969. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision. In his May 2018 and May 2020 substantive appeals, the Veteran requested a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. However, in a November 2020 statement, he withdrew his hearing request. While on appeal, an April 2018 rating decision increased the rating for the Veteran's PTSD to 70 percent, effective November 17, 2017. However, as he is presumed to be seeking the maximum benefit for a disability and higher ratings for such disability is available, such claim for higher ratings remain in appellate status. A.B. v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). In March 2021, the Board remanded the case for additional development. While on remand, an August 2021 rating decision, granted an increased rating of 100 percent for the Veteran's PTSD, effective July 23, 2021, which is the maximum schedular rating for such disability. Thus, as of such date, the Veteran's claim has been granted in full. Consequently, the issue on appeal has been recharacterized to reflect the current matter pending before the Board. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent prior to November 17, 2017, and in excess of 70 percent from November 17, 2017 to July 23, 2021 for PTSD. Disability ratings are determined by applying a schedule of ratings that is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition should be emphasized. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Examination reports are to be interpreted in light of the whole recorded history, and each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. All reasonable doubt will be resolved in the claimant's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation is to be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods based on the facts found - a practice known as "staged" ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Staged ratings are appropriate whenever the factual findings show distinct periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Id. The basis of disability evaluation is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. The appeal period before the Board stems from the Veteran's July 15, 2015, claim for increased ratings for his PTSD, plus the one-year look-back period. Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As relevant to the appeal period, the Veteran's PTSD is evaluated as 50 percent disabling prior to November 17, 2017, and as 70 percent disabling from November 17, 2017 to July 23, 2021. As the Veteran is in receipt of the maximum rating available as of July 23, 2021, that period is no longer on appeal and will not be further herein. The Veteran's PTSD is rated under the criteria of Diagnostic Code (DC) 9411, which provides that such disability is evaluated pursuant to the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders at 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Under DC 9411, a 50 percent rating is warranted when there is 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; impairments of short-and long-term memory; impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbance of motivation and mood; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent evaluation is warranted when there is 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; 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 work like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A 100 percent evaluation is warranted where there is 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; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 is "symptom-driven," meaning that "symptomatology should be the fact-finder's primary focus when deciding entitlement to a given disability rating" under that regulation. See Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 11617 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The symptoms listed are not exhaustive, but rather "serve as examples of the type and degree of symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating." Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). In the context of determining whether a higher disability evaluation is warranted, the analysis requires considering "not only the presence of certain symptoms[,] but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas" i.e., "the regulation... requires an ultimate factual conclusion as to the Veteran's level of impairment in 'most areas.'" Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 11718; 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411. Further, when evaluating a mental disorder, the Board must consider the "frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the Veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission," and must also "assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination." 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (a). In Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10 (2017), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the language of the General Rating Formula "indicates that the presence of suicidal ideation alone may cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas." However, as recognized by the Court, VA must engage in a holistic analysis in assessing the severity, frequency, and duration of the signs and symptoms of a veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability, and their resulting social and occupational impairment. The Board notes that the revised DSM-5, which, among other things, eliminates Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores, applies to appeals certified to the Board after August 4, 2014, as is the case here. See 79 Fed. Reg. 45, 093 (August 4, 2014). Consequently, the Board will not consider the previously assigned GAF scores in determining the outcome of this case. See Golden v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 221 (2018). Turning to the evidence of record, at an August 2015 VA examination, the examiner diagnosed PTSD and alcohol use disorder, moderate, which were found to result in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, which is commensurate with a 50 percent rating under the General Rating Formula. Here, the examiner found that it was not possible to differentiate what symptom was attributable to each of the Veteran's diagnoses, as the symptoms occur simultaneously and concurrently, however the alcohol use began as a coping skill for PTSD. The Veteran endorsed symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, disturbances of mood and motivation, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. The examiner further noted the Veteran reported significant crying spells and emotional lability and dysregulation. Although reporting that he had not worked since January, the Veteran stated he would like to return to work. The Veteran underwent VA examination for his PTSD again in September 2016. At such time, the VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and alcohol use disorder and found the Veteran's psychiatric symptomatology resulted in 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, which is commensurate with a 30 percent rating under the General Rating Formula. However, here the examiner found it was possible to differentiate what symptom was attributable to each of the Veteran's diagnoses, as the PTSD is characterized by recurrent memories about the war, recurrent dreams, hypervigilance, anxiety, hyper startle reflex, and avoidance of reminders. His alcohol use disorder is characterized by excessive use of alcohol with intoxication and is related to the PTSD. The Veteran endorsed symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, chronic sleep impairment, disturbances of mood and motivation, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. The examiner explicitly determined he was capable of working but has not been fortunate enough to get an interview. Specifically, she noted that there were no functional limitations that would preclude him from holding a job, although his current alcohol intake on a daily basis will affect his performance in future employment. However, the Veteran did not live alone and losing employment in 2015 due to angry outbursts. A September 2016 mental status examination reflects the Veteran's mood was good, affect appeared euthymic, and his behavior was pleasant and cooperative. Speech and thought processes were within normal limits, and his thought content was future oriented. He denied suicidal and homicidal ideation and there was no indication of psychosis. That same month the Veteran participated in an ambulatory alcohol detoxification program and was successful in quitting drinking for a time, with mild to no anxiety. December 2016 and January 2017 VA treatment records indicate the Veteran was still sober at that time. During this time period, he expressed no suicidal or homicidal ideation, or psychosis. In November 2017, the Veteran submitted a private mental status examination conducted by Dr. J.A., who diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and noted the Veteran experienced unwanted memories, distressing dreams, and distress at exposure to cues that symbolize or resemble Vietnam, to include hot, rainy weather, smell of aviation or diesel fuel, the sound of helicopters, seeing Asian people on the street, fireworks, hearing songs from the 60s, or seeing pictures of Jane Fonda. These cues cause physical reactions where his heart will race, his breathing changes, he breaks out in a sweat, and feels tense or shaky. He tries to avoid such triggers. He also reported being "run out" of his previous employment with the Social Security Administration (SSA) but expressed a desire to go back to work. The Veteran did, however, note positive feelings towards his family and looking forward to a trip to Mexico with a high school friend. Additionally, that same month the Veteran submitted PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) at which time Dr. J.A. noted his PTSD was found to result in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, which is commensurate with a 70 percent rating under the General Rating Formula. At such time the Veteran stated he feels alienated and like a recluse. However, he also reported positive feelings towards his family and looking forward to going to Mexico with a friend from high school. Dr. J.A. noted the Veteran's psychiatric disability resulted in additional symptoms of suspiciousness, mild memory loss, circumstantial, circumlocutory or stereotyped speech, speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant, difficulty in understanding complex commands, impaired abstract thinking, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances. There was no indication of hallucinations or delusions, and the Veteran did not appear to pose a threat of danger or injury to self or others. The Veteran reported that he wanted to go back to work and has tried to secure jobs, but that "they always ask me the same questions." As a result of such increased symptoms, the Veteran was granted an increased rating of 70 percent for his PTSD, effective the date of his DBQ. An October 2018 VA mental health note reflects the Veteran's mood was anxious, affect congruent with mood and appropriate to topics, and his behavior was cooperative. Thought processes and content were clear and relevant to topics, with good recent and remote memory. He exhibited good insight, judgment, and impulse control. He was adequately groomed. He denied suicidal and homicidal ideation and there was no indication of psychosis. During November 2018, the Veteran participated in "Overcoming PTSD Group" therapy, in which he was described as an active participant in discussion, providing supportive statements to other group members, and engaged with treatment. He did not exhibit suicidal or homicidal ideation, and there was no evidence of intoxication or withdrawal. He exhibited good insight, judgment, and impulse control. See VA treatment records. March 2019 private hospital records reflect the Veteran had begun drinking daily again. (see Bayhealth records). However, a September 2019 VA depression screen was negative, and the Veteran was noted to have no risk of harm to self or others. September and November 2019 VA treatment records reflect the Veteran was conversant, cooperative with normal affect, and exhibited appropriate effect, and was alert and oriented to person, place, and time, respectively. A January 2020 mental status examination revealed the Veteran was alert, had adequate grooming, good eye contact, and cooperative. His thought process was linear, logical, and goal oriented. His speech was fluent, non-pressured, relevant, and coherent. He did not exhibit suicidal or homicidal ideation, delusions, obsessional rituals, auditory/visual hallucinations, and was oriented to person, place, and thing. In September and October 2020, he was appropriate and cooperative, and denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. See VA treatment records. Records throughout the time period reflect the Veteran's daughter was involved in his care, often accompanying him to doctor's appointments, and May 2020 and June 2021 VA treatment records reflect the Veteran resided with her and at least one grandchild. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that, a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD, for the appeal period prior to November 17, 2017, is not warranted. In this regard, the Veteran has never reported symptoms commensurate with a 100 percent rating, nor do treatment records or examinations reflect any such symptoms throughout such appeal period. Furthermore, while he has reported some symptoms as contemplated by a 70 percent rating, such are not shown to be of a nature, frequency, duration, and severity as to result in social and occupational impairment with deficiencies in most areas. Here, while the Veteran had been found to have difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work like setting), the September 2016 VA examiner explicitly determined he was capable of working and noted that there were no functional limitations that would preclude him from holding a job, although his current alcohol intake on a daily basis will affect his performance in future employment. However, the Board observes that by September 2016, the Veteran appears to have his drinking under control during this period of the appeal. Furthermore, the Veteran has never endorsed suicidal ideation. Moreover, the remainder of the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms noted throughout this appeal period are explicitly contemplated by the rating criteria for a 10, 30, or 50 percent rating under the General Rating Formula. Furthermore, regardless of the classification of the Veteran's symptoms under the General Rating Formula, the Board finds that the totality of such, to include consideration of their nature, frequency, duration, and severity, result in, at most, occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity prior to November 17, 2017. In this regard, while the Veteran was not working during the appeal period, he stated at his August 2015 VA examination he would like to return to work, and at his September 2016 VA examination that he was looking for work. Moreover, in consideration of the totality of the Veteran's PTSD symptomatology, the August 2015 VA examiner, a psychologist who has the necessary expertise to evaluate psychiatric disabilities, determined that such resulted in, at most, in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. Further, the September 2016 VA examiner, also a psychologist with expertise, determined that such resulted in 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, which is commensurate with a 50 percent and 30 percent ratings, respectively, under the General Rating Formula. Thus, the Board finds that, as the probative evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's PTSD resulted in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas or total occupational and social impairment for the appeal period prior to November 17, 2017, a rating in excess of 50 percent for such disability is not warranted. As the Veteran's more severe PTSD symptoms were shown for the first time in the November 2017 DBQ, November 17, 2017, the date of the DBQ is the earliest ascertainable date of the increase in functional impairment, and a 70 percent rating is not warranted prior to that date. See Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 (2015). Similarly, the Board finds that, from November 17, 2017 to July 23, 2021, a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD is not warranted. Specifically, there is no evidence that the Veteran's PTSD results in symptomatology of gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; disorientation to time or place; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Furthermore, a June 2021 social work assessment noted that the Veteran was independent with regard to his activities of daily living (ADLs), although he used a walker to ambulate and had just obtained a scooter. With regard to ADLs, all of the VA and private medical records from this time period indicate that the Veteran's hygiene and grooming were appropriate. Moreover, the record shows that the Veteran had a relationship with his daughter who was actively involved in his care, and with whom he lived. Moreover, in consideration of the totality of the Veteran's PTSD symptomatology, the November 2017 VA private psychologist, Dr. J.A., determined that such resulted in, at most, in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, which is commensurate with a 70 percent rating under the General Rating Formula. There is no evidence of record the Veteran's PTSD resulted in total social or occupational impairment as he maintained relationships with his daughter and at least one grandchild, had at least one friend from high school, and reported a desire to go back to work, although was unsuccessful in securing employment. Thus, the Board finds that, as the probative evidence of record does not show a rating in excess of 70 percent for such disability is warranted. Further, as the July 2021 VA examination was the first evidence of record indicating that a 100 percent rating for PTSD was warranted, July 23, 2021 is the earliest ascertainable date of the increase in PTSD symptoms, and a rating in excess of 70 percent prior to that date is not warranted. See Swain, supra. In reaching its conclusions, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that his symptoms related to his PTSD are more severe than as reflected by the currently assigned ratings. The Board must consider the entire evidence of record when analyzing the criteria laid out in the rating schedule. While the Board recognizes that the Veteran is competent to describe his symptomatology, he is not competent to provide an opinion regarding the severity of his symptomatology in accordance with the rating criteria. Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007) (explaining that while the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical question). The Board finds the medical evidence in which professionals with medical expertise examined the Veteran in regard to his PTSD, acknowledged his reported symptoms, and described the manifestations of such disabilities in light of the rating criteria to be more persuasive than his own reports regarding the severity of such disabilities. The Board has also considered whether additional staged ratings under Hart, supra, are appropriate for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD; however, the Board finds that his symptomatology has been stable throughout each period on appeal. Therefore, assigning additional staged ratings for such disability is not warranted. Further, neither the Veteran nor his representative have raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, with regard to the increased rating claims adjudicated herein. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). In conclusion, the Board finds that increased ratings for the Veteran's PTSD are not warranted. In reaching such determination, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the weight of the probative evidence is against the Veteran's claim. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal and his increased rating claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. 2. Entitlement to TDIU prior to July 23, 2021 Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when a veteran 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, such disability shall be ratable as 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Unlike the regular disability rating schedule, which is based on the average work-related impairment caused by a disability, "entitlement to TDIU is based on an individual's particular circumstances." Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2009). Therefore, when adjudicating TDIU claim, VA must take into account the individual veteran's education, training, and work history. Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991) (level of education is a factor in deciding employability); Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 294 (1994) (considering Veteran's experience as a pilot, his training in business administration and computer programming, and his history of obtaining and losing 19 jobs in the previous 18 years); Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532 (1994) (considering Veteran's 8th grade education and sole occupation as a farmer); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991) (considering Veteran's master's degree in education and his part-time work as a tutor). Age may not be considered as a factor when evaluating unemployability or intercurrent disability, and it may not be used as a basis for a total disability rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.19. There must be a determination that the service-connected disabilities are sufficient to produce unemployability without regard to advancing age or a non-service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. The sole fact that a claimant is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. A high rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment. The ultimate question, however, is whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether he or she can find employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). In Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58 (2019), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) defined the term "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" in § 4.16(b) to include two components: one economic and one noneconomic. The economic component means 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. The non-economic component includes consideration of the veteran's history, education, skill, and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability to perform the type of activities required by the occupation at issue; and whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue. As of July 23, 2021, the Veteran is in receipt of a 100 percent schedular rating for his PTSD and additional service-connected disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent and has been awarded SMC at the housebound rate as of such date, thereby rendering his claim for TDIU moot. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2011); Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). However, prior to July 23, 2021, his claim for TDIU remains viable on appeal. In this regard, in his August 2016 Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability (VA Form 21-8940), the Veteran reported that, as relevant to the appeal period, he last worked full time for the Social Security Administration (SSA) from 2002 to January 2015 where he made $7,500 a month as a video editor. He further reported that he completed 2 years of vocational school, graduating in 1970 with a certification as a broadcast engineer. According to his September 2016 PTSD examination, prior to working for the SSA, he worked at a local TV station in broadcasting after military service and then worked for a Navy TV station from 1985 to 2001 as a videographer. Within such application, the Veteran indicated that his PTSD produced his unemployability. Specifically, he stated that he has "tried to [re]apply, but they will not hire me back due to my PTSD." In other documents of record, the Veteran has indicated that he was "forced out" of this job after an altercation with a supervisor, absenteeism, and his attitude, which he attributes to his PTSD. For the entire appeal period, the Veteran is service-connected for PTSD, evaluated as 50 percent disabling prior to November 17, 2017 and 70 percent thereafter; gunshot wound to muscle groups XVIII and XVII with fracture to iliac crest, evaluated as 40 percent disabling prior to December 4, 2017 and 50 percent thereafter; gunshot wound to muscle group XIX, evaluated as 30 percent disabling prior to March 29, 2019, and 50 percent disabling thereafter; and, peritoneal adhesions as residuals of gunshot wound, evaluated as 30 percent disabling prior to March 29, 2019, and 50 percent disabling thereafter; scar of left middle low back, evaluated as 20 percent disabling as of December 4, 2017; scar, midline abdomen, evaluated as 10 percent disabling; colostomy scar, evaluated as noncompensable, erectile dysfunction associated with PTSD, evaluated as noncompensable as of December 4, 2017, and tinnitus, evaluated as 10 percent disabling. Consequently, the Veteran is in receipt of a combined disability rating of 80 percent prior to July 15, 2015, and at least 90 percent thereafter. Further, as all of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities were found to have been incurred in combat and thus may be considered to have resulted from a common etiology or constitute multiple injuries incurred in action, they may be considered a single disability for TDIU purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). Thus, the Veteran meets the schedular requirements for TDIU for the entire appeal period. Consequently, the remaining inquiry is whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation consistent with his education and work history at any point during the appeal period. In regard to the nature of the limitations associated with the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, the Board again notes that he only contends that his PTSD renders him unemployable. Furthermore, his remaining service-connected disabilities are shown to result in no more than slight impairment in the relevant acts required to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. Specifically, an August 2015 found the Veteran's scars did not impact his ability to work. However, a December 2017 examiner found the Veteran's gunshot residuals, to include his scars, muscle injuries, and fracture of the iliac crest impacted heavy lifting, carrying, walking, standing, running, and performing physical activities. The Veteran underwent VA examination again for such disabilities in April 2019, at which time the examiner found they did not impact his ability to work. At such time, the Veteran underwent additional examinations for his peritoneal adhesions and his residuals of colostomy. The examiner found neither disability impacted his ability to work. Moreover, in a private November 2017 vocational assessment, the examiner stated, "[f]rom an exertional standpoint, the Veteran would not be precluded from any and all employment." The vocational examiner determined the job of a videographer was "light" in terms of strength. Thus, there is no evidence the Veteran's non-PTSD disabilities rendered him unemployable. As to the functional impairment associated with the Veteran's PTSD, the Board notes the Veteran states he was forced out of his job with the SSA but states he would have preferred to keep working. In this regard, he consistently reports either wanting to go back to work, or that he is actively looking for work through at least November 2017. Thus, it would appear the Veteran viewed himself as employable, even though he was unsuccessful at securing a position. See VA-Form 8940, September 2016 VA examination, and November 2017 Dr. J.A. assessment. However, in his November 2017 private vocational report, the vocational examiner finds the Veteran is unemployable due to severe limitations associated with his PTSD. Specifically, she found his short-term memory impairment and reduced reliability and productivity, to include his absenteeism, would be unacceptable in competitive employment. However, when completing his VA Form 8940, the Veteran indicated time lost from illness between 2002 to 2015 was "none." Further, while Dr. J.A. found the Veteran exhibited mild memory loss, he also diagnosed the Veteran with a R/O [rule out] neurocognitive deficit. Dr. J.A. stated such was "idiopathic with elevated activity, flightive ideas, scattered thinking and later onset. [It]is felt that this neurocognitive problem is separate from PTSD and does not contribute to PTSD impairment." Additionally, Dr. J.A.'s finding of mild memory loss is an outlier, as the August 2015 and September 2016 VA examiners did not note such symptom, and an October 2018 VA treatment record reflects his "recent and remote memory was good." In fact, throughout his VA treatment records, the Veteran is not noted to suffer any memory impairment. Further, in describing his duties as a videographer, while he contends he was "forced out," he also stated during his November 2017 private assessment that he "didn't usually have interpersonal problems on the job because he mostly worked by himself." In conjunction with the present appeal, the regional office requested the Veteran's personnel records from SSA, but received none. Although the Veteran stated that he was forced out of his job and quit working due to his PTSD, VA's efforts to obtain the Veteran's personnel records have not disclosed any disciplinary action. Rather, the reason the Veteran stopped working was indicated as "optional retirement." Thus, the Board finds that a remand for further attempts to obtain personnel records from SSA would not uncover evidence favorable to the claim and would be futile. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(d). Therefore, based upon a review of the foregoing, prior to July 23, 2021 the Board finds that the Veteran's service-connected PTSD did not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation consistent with his education and work history. Specifically, given the Veteran's education, training, and experience, to include decades in broadcasting or video production, the Board finds he is capable of performing the mental and physical acts necessary for the successful performance of such type of position as such do not require physically intensive activities and would allow the Veteran the ability to work alone. Additionally, with the proper equipment, the Veteran could work remotely as a home-based editor or freelance editor. Further, VA treatment records throughout the appeal period reveal that VA clinicians have consistently found the Veteran was oriented to time and place, was cooperative and pleasant, communicated well, and possessed good cognition. Therefore, the Board finds that the limitations associated with the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, either singularly or in combination, do not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation consistent with his education and work history. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the weight of the probative evidence is against the Veteran's claim for TDIU, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal and such claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Jason George Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. M. Kelly, Associate 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.