Citation Nr: 22036635 Decision Date: 06/24/22 Archive Date: 06/24/22 DOCKET NO. 14-21 005A DATE: June 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. Entitlement to basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) under 38 U.S.C. § Chapter 35 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Veteran had active military service from June 1969 to September 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from the September 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. The Veteran contends that he cannot work due to his service-connected disabilities. This matter was previously before the Board in October 2021 and was remanded for extraschedular consideration. Subsequently, in November 2021, a VA memo was obtained stating that the evidence fails to support the Veteran's contention that his service-connected disabilities prior to November 21, 2012, prevented employment. The Board is not bound by this memorandum. In Ray v. Wilkie, the Court defined the term "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" as having two components: one economic and one noneconomic. See Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019). 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. Id. The non-economic component includes consideration of the following: 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. Id. The Board notes that the Veteran's May 2022 Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefits states that the Veteran is self-employed and retired due to his disabilities. However, the Veteran's VA treatment records state that he, as recently as September 2017, worked as a carpenter. The Board notes that the Veteran also submitted a May 2022 Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability and stated that he had earned income of $36,000 for the previous 12 months. However, on another form dated in May 2021, he reported being self employed, but retired due to disabilities since 2015. Therefore, it is unclear whether or not the Veteran has been working since he retired, as well as throughout the appeal period, and how much he has been earning. Therefore, a remand is warranted to obtain the Veteran's record of earnings from the Social Security Administration to determine whether or not he meets the criteria for a TDIU. 2. Entitlement to DEA is remanded. As the resolution of the claim for TDIU might be determinative of the DEA claim, the issues are inextricably intertwined, and the DEA issue must also be remanded. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's record of earnings of his employment income from the United States Social Security Administration for every single year from 2012 until the present. 2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.