Citation Nr: 22018396 Decision Date: 03/29/22 Archive Date: 03/29/22 DOCKET NO. 12-30 935 DATE: March 29, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a total evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from June 1995 to November 1997. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2010 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). While this rating decision did not address entitlement to a TDIU as a separate issue, such is retrospectively considered to have been adjudicated as part and parcel of a claim for an increased evaluation. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2009). The Veteran expressed disagreement with this determination, among others, and the present appeal ensued. In September 2015, the Veteran testified at a hearing conducted by a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) via videoconferencing equipment. A transcript of the September 2015 hearing is associated with the file. The Veteran's appeal was previously before the Board in December 2016 and November 2019, when it was determined that remand was necessary to ensure that VA fulfilled its duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his appeal. The Board's prior remand directives and the subsequent actions of the AOJ will be discussed below. The Veteran's appeal has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. In a July 2021 letter, the Veteran and his representative were notified that the VLJ who conducted the September 2015 hearing was no longer with the Board and was then afforded the opportunity to appear at another hearing if so desired. As no response was received from the Veteran or his representative, the Board may proceed with further appellate consideration. In August 2021, the case returned to the Board. The Board remanded the Veteran's claim in order for him to provide additional details regarding his contention that his work accommodations have created a sheltered and/or protected work environment. In addition, the Board found that it was necessary to remand the Veteran's claim in order for the Veteran's employer to provide a complete description regarding the accommodations that are provided for the Veteran. Entitlement to a total evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. In August 2021, the Board requested the RO to contact the Veteran in order for him to provide further details regarding his work accommodations and then contact the Veteran's employer to verify the allowances that are provided to the Veteran. In September 2021, the Board notes that the RO contacted the Veteran, but the RO never sent any correspondence regarding work accommodations to the Veteran's employer. Accordingly, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the remand orders; therefore, the matter must be remanded once again for compliance with the previous order/completion of the actions sought. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that where the remand orders of the Board are not satisfied the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: The AOJ must contact the Veteran's employer to request clarification and details of all work accommodations provided to the Veteran from August 6, 2009, to cope with the functional impairment of his service-connected disabilities. The Veteran's employer must provide details concerning the frequency and nature of thee accommodations, to include allowances for freedoms not normally provided to other similarly situated workers, such as remote employment, periods of leave or rest as needed, specialized office settings to reduce light and/or sound, and/or preclusions from participation in, or conformity with, employee activities and standards. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Rescan, 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.