Citation Nr: 23056074 Decision Date: 10/13/23 Archive Date: 10/13/23 DOCKET NO. 19-22 927 DATE: October 13, 2023 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating for posttraumatic stress disorder with unspecified depressive disorder (hereinafter PTSD) currently rated 30 percent disabling prior to June 30, 2016, and 70 percent disabling thereafter is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities, prior to April 16, 2022, to include on an extraschedular basis, is denied. REMANDED Service connection for a low back disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to June 30, 2016, the Veteran's PTSD manifested in symptoms suggesting 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 normal conversation, but did not manifest in 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; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships suggesting occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. 2. From June 30, 2016, the Veteran's PTSD manifested in occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, but did not manifest in 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; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name suggesting total occupational and social impairment. 3. Prior to June 30, 2016, the Veteran did not meet the threshold schedular criteria for TDIU, and there is insufficient evidence to substantiate a reasonable possibility that the Veteran is unemployable because of her service-connected disabilities. 4. Throughout the entire period on appeal (i.e., prior to April 16, 2022, to include both prior to and after June 30, 2016), the evidence persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities precluded her from obtaining or maintaining substantially gainful employment as she was employed throughout the entire period and said employment was neither marginal nor protected. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD currently rated 30 percent disabling prior to June 30, 2016, and 70 percent disabling thereafter have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9411. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU prior to April 16, 2022, to include on an extraschedular basis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.25. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1989 to June 1992. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board previously remanded these claims in July 2022 and February 2023 for additional development following an April 2022 hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file and reviewed. The Board finds substantial compliance with the prior remand directives has been met. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As will be discussed in more detail below, however, unfortunately, remand is again necessary pertaining to only service connection for a low back disability in order to obtain outstanding service records. During the course of the additionally directed development, entitlement to TDIU was granted from April 16, 2022, in a June 2023 rating decision. Entitlement to TDIU for the remaining period on appeal prior to April 16, 2022, however, remains on appeal. See Payne v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 373, 389 (2019); Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018). Since the last adjudication by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), additional, non-duplicative, relevant evidence has been added to the Veteran's claims file. In September 2023, however, the Veteran's representative, on her behalf, waived AOJ review of any additional evidence associated with the claims file since the June 2023 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and, therefore, the Board finds no prejudice in proceeding with the adjudication below. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD currently rated 30 percent disabling prior to June 30, 2016, and 70 percent disabling thereafter is denied. The Veteran contends his PTSD symptoms warrant a higher disability rating throughout the entire period on appeal. The Veteran's PTSD is currently rated 30 percent disabling prior to June 30, 2016, and 70 percent disabling thereafter under DC 9411. As will be discussed in more detail below, an increased rating is not warranted at any time during the period on appeal. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The Rating Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. The basis of disability evaluations 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. DC 9411 provides that PTSD should be rated under the General Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula). The Board must conduct a "holistic analysis" that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017); 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The Board must determine whether unlisted symptoms are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to the listed symptoms associated with specific disability percentages. Then, the Board must determine whether the associated symptoms, both listed and unlisted, caused the level of impairment required for a higher disability rating. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 114-118 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A 30 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, or mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, or recent events), cause 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 normal conversation). A 50 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such 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 (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships cause occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. A 70 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such 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 worklike setting); or inability to establish and maintain effective relationships cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. 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 personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. The Board notes the Veteran was granted service connection for PTSD in a February 2009 rating decision with a 30 percent disability rating assigned. The Veteran did not appeal or submit additional evidence within a year of the February 2009 rating decision. As such, it became a final decision. Thereafter, VA received the Veteran's increased rating claim on July 28, 2015, prompting a September 2015 rating decision. There were multiple subsequent rating decisions thereafter all prompted by additional increased rating claims filed and developed within a year of the previous rating decision. Most recently, there was an increased rating claim filed in July 2017 prompting the August 2017 rating decision on appeal herein. The Board finds in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 that these additionally developed increased rating claims filed within a year with the previous rating decision have been filed in connection with the claim that was pending at the beginning of the appeal period in July 2015. Thus, the Board will consider the severity of her PTSD from July 28, 2015 (the date of claim), or up to one year prior to VA's receipt of the Veteran's increased rating claim, to the extent an increase in severity is factually ascertainable. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). Turning to the relevant evidence of record, in 2015, the Veteran reported "having some problems with my PTSD." She reported that her symptoms were manageable until the fourth of July when "it all came back." Since then, she has been waking up several times each night sweating and anxious. She reported that she has missed a few days of work due to insomnia. She denied depression, anxiety, or panic attacks. She reported being easily startled by loud noises, uncomfortable and avoidant of crowds, and hypervigilant. She stated that she goes grocery shopping when they are less crowded. She denied suicidal / homicidal ideation, hallucinations, paranoia, or mania. She endorsed being close to family. She was alert and oriented with appropriate grooming and dress. Her thought process was logical and goal oriented with appropriate affect. She also endorsed poor concentration, daily spontaneous crying spells, and decreased energy. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in September 2015 during which the Veteran was noted to experience symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, and chronic sleep impairment productive of 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. She endorsed talking to her mother daily. She reported socializing with family. She stated that she gets along well with co-workers but does not socialize outside of work. She was a member of the American Legion and active in church. She reported that for the last seven years she has managed her symptoms by finding a quiet place. She complained of nightmares, crowd avoidance, hypervigilance, easy startle response with sirens, avoidance of combat movies and military conversation, intrusive thoughts, and depression since July. She also endorsed occasional difficulty concentrating and coping with stress. She was alert and oriented with appropriate appearance. She had adequate insight and judgment. She denied experiencing angry outbursts, irritability, violence, panic attacks, and suicidal / homicidal ideation. Shortly thereafter, the Veteran was afforded another VA examination in December 2015. The examiner noted the same symptoms and occupational impairment as was noted in September 2015. Additionally, the Veteran reported that her marriage was great and that she had a great relationship with her son. She endorsed enjoying cooking, watching television, socializing with her family including her mother and sister and her husband's "very large" family. She reported that she remained employed full-time as an executive secretary and has no issues at work with her boss or her co-workers. She stated there are days where she does not want to get out of bed because she does not want to deal with crowds or interactions at work. She endorsed anxiety, crowd avoidance, getting teary-eyed, increased difficulty concentrating at work, startle response, chronic sleep disturbance, and weight gain. She was alert and oriented, appropriately dressed and groomed, and had normal thought process and content. She had adequate insight and judgement. Peripheral shadows were noted. Suicidal and / or homicidal ideation was not indicated. In 2016, the Veteran denied having feelings or intentions of hurting or killing herself or others. She denied hearing voices or experiencing hallucinations. She was alert and oriented with appropriate grooming. She endorsed experiencing fatigue, low energy and motivation, and poor concentration. She continued to endorse baseline hypervigilance, crowd avoidance, and hyperstartle reflex. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2016 during which his symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances including work or a work-like setting were found to be productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and / or mood. She also endorsed depressed mood, hopelessness, and poor energy. The examiner noted there was no change in social or occupational history since the previous VA examination. She was alert and oriented. Insight and judgement were grossly intact. Suicidal ideation, planning, and intent were denied. In 2017, the Veteran endorsed continued depression, anxiety, nightmares, avoidance, low motivation, tearfulness, and easy startle response. She was consistently assessed as alert and oriented and adequately dressed and groomed. She denied suicidal / homicidal ideation or hallucinations. Her judgment and insight were intact. Her PTSD was noted to be stable. She was afforded a VA examination in August 2017 during which the examiner opined that the Veteran's symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, disturbance of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances were productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and / or mood. She reported that she is still married but her spouse moved out of the home in June 2017. She denied being a member of any community organizations or clubs. She endorsed continuing to socialize with her mother, sister, and her husband's family. She stated that her overall mood is "not so good" and that she has feelings of depression and anxiety. She denied recent flashbacks, delusions or psychotic thoughts, suicidal / homicidal ideation, or hallucinations. The Veteran self-reported symptoms of crying spells, hypervigilance, easily startled when hearing sirens, decreased concentration, avoidance of military discussions, anxiety, nervousness, social isolation, anhedonia, decreased energy and motivation, and occasional intrusive thoughts. She denied angry outbursts, irritability, or violence. She was alert and oriented with appropriate dress and grooming. She had adequate insight and judgement. In 2018, the Veteran denied experiencing suicidal / homicidal ideation, hallucinations, or hopelessness. Treatment records in 2018 reference difficulty with daytime flashbacks whenever she hears a siren. She endorsed concentration problems, nightmares, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances. She denied suicidal / homicidal ideation, hallucinations, or delusions. She was alert and oriented with appropriate grooming. Her memory and insight were intact. Treatment records in 2019 reference continued nightmares, anxiety, isolation, difficulty in crowds and with noises, sleep disturbances, concentration difficulties, and depression. She was alert and oriented with appropriate grooming. She denied suicidal / homicidal ideation, hallucinations, or delusions. In the 2019 VA Form 9, the Veteran stated that she was escorted to the ER for treatment. She stated that she is "not feeling well about myself or my surroundings." She stated that she is starting to "feel uneasy and to the point of hurting myself." She has been having these feelings lately. She endorsed that her mother has been helping with her hygiene and a few other household chores as she forgets what day it is. She stated she is tearful, forgetful, on edge, forgetful, and unable to rest. She stated that she was cursing at her co-workers and is afraid she may hurt one of them. She stated that she feels alone in the world. She endorsed being worried someone is in the house, so she leaves the lights on at night. In another 2019 statement, the Veteran reported that her PTSD is not improving. She stated that she has missed work and is unable to concentrate. She reported seeing things and hearing voices. She "freaks out" when a siren alarms. She denied having interest in activities outside of the house. She endorsed forgetting her location while driving. She explained that her husband helps with daily activities and hygiene that she normally performs on her own. She is "hopeless and not wanting to exist because maybe it would be better." She said that she is on alert all the time. In 2020, the Veteran stated that she has been gaining weight, continues to experience flashbacks and nightmares, and feels unwanted. She endorsed difficulty concentrating at work and performing her job. She said, "sometimes feeling if I was not here, things would be better." She stated that she spent three days without bathing or brushing teeth and forgets to take care of her hygiene. In 2022, treatment records reference that the Veteran's current mood is "ok, I have my ups and downs and just take one day at a time." She endorsed continued depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and nightmares. She was alert and oriented. She denied experiencing suicidal / homicidal ideation, hallucinations, or delusions. Judgement and insight were intact. The Veteran testified before the Board in April 2022 that her symptoms of PTSD were worse. She endorsed missing work due to symptoms, continued sleep disturbance, difficulty functioning, panic attacks, disorientation, and hopelessness. She denied experiencing delusions or hallucinations. She stated that sometimes "it's just not even worth it anymore." A VA examination occurred in September 2022 during which the Veteran was noted to experience 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, and neglect of personal appearance and hygiene productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and / or mood. She was noted to live with her mother as she divorced in 2021. She reported diminished motivation to complete household chores and sometimes has difficulty tending to basic hygiene tasks. She has trouble completing errands such as grocery shopping due to crowds. When she is not working, she prefers to spend time alone in her room. She has a good relationship with her mother and sister but otherwise tries to avoid social interactions. She endorsed negative thoughts about herself and difficulty concentrating on daily tasks. While she may have passive thoughts about death, she denied current, active suicidal ideation, intent, or plan. She was alert and oriented with appropriate grooming and dress. She denied suicidal / homicidal ideation and / or hallucinations. In 2023 treatment records, the Veteran endorsed struggling at work. She stated that she was having flashbacks and experiencing claustrophobia. Symptoms were noted to include nightmares, intrusive recollections, avoidance behaviors, intense psychological distress, hypervigilance, and exaggerated startle response. She was alert and oriented and appropriately groomed. She denied experiencing suicidal / homicidal ideation, hallucinations, or delusions. In 2023, the Veteran reported that she was not doing well while elsewhere stating she was doing "fairly well." She endorsed being engaged. Symptoms were noted to include nightmares, intrusive recollections, flashbacks, triggers, avoidance behaviors, autonomic hyperactivity, hypervigilance, and exaggerated startle response. She was alert and oriented with appropriate hygiene and dress. She had normal thought content and processes. She denied suicidal / homicidal ideations and delusions or hallucinations. She denied experiencing crying spells or feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, or guilt. She endorsed continuing to work, but she is a "zombie" due to medications. In a June 2023 VA examination, the Veteran was noted to experience symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks weekly or less often, chronic sleep impairment, difficulty in understanding complex commands, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances productive of occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. She endorsed experiencing depressed mood, crying spells, relationship problems, disrupted sleeping, recurrent nightmares, avoidance of traumatic memories, recurrent memories, poor appetite, anxiety, easily startled, hypervigilant, flashbacks, and history of passive suicidal ideation without current intent or plan. She reported that she tires and frustrates easily. She endorsed problems with attending, focusing, and concentrating on things. She was alert and oriented with appropriate grooming and dress. Prior to June 30, 2016 During this period, the issue in this appeal is whether the Veteran's PTSD symptoms caused the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 50 percent or higher. The Board concludes that the Veteran's symptoms did not cause the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 50 percent or higher. Rather, the Veteran's symptoms are appropriately rated 30 percent disabling prior to June 30, 2016, because they more closely approximated the symptoms and level of impairment associated with a 30 percent rating. Based on the aforementioned, the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by symptoms associated with a 30 percent rating including depressed mood, anxiety, and chronic sleep impairment. She also had symptoms that are not listed with a specific rating, such as avoiding crowds, poor concentration, crying spells, decreased energy, easily startled, and hypervigilance. The Board finds the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's listed and unlisted symptoms more closely approximate the symptoms contemplated by a 30 percent rating, which are less severe, less frequent, and shorter in duration than those contemplated by a 50 percent rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126. The Board finds significant here that the Veteran was afforded two VA examinations during this period in September 2015 and December 2015, both of which reflect similar disability pictures. Indeed, both examiners noted the same symptoms and that said symptoms were productive of 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. Overall, during the period on appeal prior to June 30, 2016, the Veteran experienced occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, but was generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and normal conversation. Indeed, during the VA examinations during this period, the Veteran was alert and oriented, had normal hygiene and grooming, socialized with family, and participated in the community. In so finding, the Board also finds the evidence is persuasively against finding a disability rating in excess of 30 percent is warranted. Significantly, the record lacks any reference to symptoms contemplated by the 50 percent rating criteria during this period. That is, the record does not reference 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 (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. The VA examinations during this period and the treatment records lack reference to any of these symptoms or any nonlisted symptoms that would more nearly approximate a 50 percent disability rating at any time prior to June 30, 2016. In summary, the Veteran's symptoms prior to June 30, 2016, were either contemplated by or more consistent with a 30 percent rating. The Board finds that the Veteran's disability is fully capable of evaluation under the rating schedule. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's symptoms resulted in the level of impairment required for a 50 percent rating and the appeal must be denied. From June 30, 2016 From June 30, 2016, the Veteran had varied PTSD symptoms that when considered together are appropriately rated 70 percent disabling. At no time during this period, however, did the Veteran's symptoms more nearly approximate the level of impairment required for a total disability rating. Treatment records, lay statements, and VA examinations during this period reference at least passive suicidal ideation, depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, disturbances of motivation and mood, panic attacks weekly or less often, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances including work or a work-like setting. She also endorsed symptoms that are not listed within a specific rating, such as continued avoidance of crowds, poor concentration, crying spells, decreased energy, easily startled, and hypervigilance. She also endorsed hopelessness. Significantly, the June 2016 VA examination reflected a more severe disability picture than previously captured further corroborating a higher disability rating. The Board finds probative the June 2016 VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran's overall disability symptoms were productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, and thinking and / or mood. This is corroborated by subsequent VA examinations in 2017 and 2022. While the 2023 VA examiner noted that the Veteran's symptoms were productive of only the occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, the Board finds significant the Veteran's reports of passive suicidal ideation throughout this period. The Board has given special consideration to the references to suicidal ideation in accordance with Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 19 (2017). Here, while the Veteran has consistently denied a plan or intent, she has stated that she has thoughts of hurting others or herself and was noted to have passive thoughts about death during the September 2022 VA examination and passive suicidal ideation in the June 2023 VA examination. Based on the overall disability picture during this period, the Board finds the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's listed and unlisted symptoms more closely approximate the symptoms contemplated by a 70 percent rating, which are less severe, less frequent, and shorter in duration than those contemplated by a total rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126. In so finding, the Board also concludes a higher 100 percent rating is not warranted at any point during the period on appeal because the Veteran never demonstrated total occupational and social impairment or symptoms of similar severity, frequency, or duration as to those contemplated by the 100 percent criteria. The record lacks any indication that the Veteran experienced 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, disorientation to time or place, or memory loss of the severity contemplated by a 100 percent rating. Treatment records during the period on appeal reference that the Veteran was alert and oriented. While the Board has acknowledged the Veteran's passive suicidal ideation which is similar to danger of self-harm contemplated by the 100 percent criteria, the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's suicidal ideation did not rise to the level contemplated by the 100 percent disability rating. Throughout the entire appeal period, all of the Veteran's treatment records reflect the Veteran declined experiencing suicidal thoughts or ideation and denied having an intent or plan. Thus, the Veteran's passive suicidal ideation did not rise to the level of persistent danger of hurting self or others. Additionally, while the Veteran reported hearing voices and seeing things in 2019, all of the VA examinations of record found that the Veteran did not experience delusions or hallucinations, let alone persistent as indicated within the 100 percent rating criteria. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds the Veteran's PTSD symptoms were appropriately rated 70 percent disabling throughout this period. The Board finds that the Veteran's disability is fully capable of evaluation under the rating schedule. Accordingly, the evidence is persuasively against the claim. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable and entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 70 percent from June 30, 2016, is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to April 16, 2022, to include on an extraschedular basis, is denied. The Veteran contends that she should be awarded TDIU prior to April 16, 2022, because she was employed in a "protected work environment". As will be discussed in more detail below, upon review, the Board finds neither referral for consideration of TDIU on an extraschedular basis nor a TDIU on the merits is warranted prior to April 16, 2022. A total disability rating for compensation purposes may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total and where it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of a service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more or as a result of two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Consideration may be given to the Veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience in arriving at a conclusion, but not to his or her age or to the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.16, 4.19; see also Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). Here, the Veteran's TDIU claim stems from her increased rating claim for PTSD which was received on July 28, 2015. As noted above, she has already been granted TDIU from April 16, 2022. Thus, the Board will consider whether TDIU can be awarded from July 28, 2015, to April 16, 2022. To meet the requirement of "one 60 percent disability" or "one 40 percent disability," the following will be considered as one disability: (1) disability of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable; (2) disabilities resulting from one common etiology; (3) disabilities affecting a single body system; (4) multiple injuries incurred in action; and (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. Id. Substantially gainful employment is defined as work which is more than marginal and which permits the individual to earn a living wage. Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991). Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts-found basis (including, but not limited to, employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. The term "substantially gainful occupation" is not defined in the rating schedule. Rather, the Court in Ray v. Wilkie, found the phrase has two components: an economic one and a noneconomic one. 31 Vet. App. 58 (2019). In assessing the veteran's ability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation, the Board is to consider the veteran's history, education, skill, and training as well as physical abilities and mental abilities required by the occupation at issue. Id. Such specific physical ability factors include lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, grasping, typing, reaching, auditory, and visual. Id. Specific mental ability factors include memory, concentration, ability to adapt to change, handle workplace stress, getting along with coworkers, and demonstrating reliability and productivity. Id. The central question is "whether the [V]eteran's service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability," not whether the Veteran could find employment. Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). In determining whether a Veteran is unemployable for VA purposes, consideration may be given to the Veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to age or any impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19 (2016); Hersey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 91 (1992); Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342 (2000). A Veteran need not show 100 percent unemployability in order to be entitled to a TDIU. Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, the Veteran is service connected for PTSD at 30 percent disabling prior to June 30, 2016, and 70 percent thereafter, and migraine headaches at 30 percent disabling from July 28, 2015, and 50 percent disabling from January 30, 2019. Accordingly, prior to June 30, 2016, the Veteran's combined disability rating did not meet the schedular threshold criteria for TDIU. As of June 30, 2016, however, the Veteran meets the schedular threshold criteria for TDIU. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). If a claimant does not meet the threshold criteria, a total disability evaluation may still be assigned, but on a different basis. It is the established policy of VA that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). The rating boards are required to submit all cases of veterans who are unemployable by reason of service-connected disabilities, but who fail to meet the percentage standards, to the Director of Compensation Service (Director) for extraschedular consideration. Id. The Board does not have the authority to assign an extraschedular total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability in the first instance. Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (2001). Rather, the Board's sole inquiry is whether referral for extraschedular consideration is warranted in light of the evidence. If the Board finds "sufficient evidence" to substantiate a "reasonable possibility" that a veteran may be unemployable because of service-connected disabilities, then the proper course of action is to remand the claim for referral to the Director of Compensation Service for an advisory opinion for extraschedular consideration. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). In contrast, if the Board determines that a referral is not appropriate, a different analysis must be made. In particular, the Court in Snider v. McDonough, 35 Vet. App. 1 (2021), held that if the Board denies a referral, it must make two determinations: (1) that a referral for extraschedular TDIU consideration is not warranted because there is insufficient evidence to substantiate a reasonable possibility that a veteran is unemployable because of service-connected disabilities; and (2) that TDIU benefits are not warranted because service-connected disabilities did not render the veteran unemployable. Accordingly, the Board will consider two separate inquiries: (1) whether referral for extraschedular TDIU consideration is warranted for the time period prior to June 30, 2016, and (2) whether a schedular TDIU award is warranted at any time period on appeal. Turning to the relevant evidence of record, within an April 20, 2022 VA 21-8940 Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, the Veteran reported that she was still working as an executive assistant (clerical) for a school district, but that she believed she was unemployable due to her PTSD and that she was only currently working "due to arrangements to assist me" and that she cannot financially afford to "quit". She noted using a lot of sick leave and missing a lot of work due to appointments and hospital stays due to her PTSD. At that time, she reported an annual salary (at least for 2021 and up until that point in April 2022) of $64,619. In contrast, the information the Veteran provided a little over a year later, in a June 2023 VA 21-8940 appears to contradict some of the information in her original application. At that time, the Veteran contended she was unemployable due to the combination of her back disability and PTSD, that she stopped working as of April 15, 2022, and that her annual income at that time, and the "most" she ever earned, was $50,000. Thus, there is a bit of a disparity as to whether the Veteran stopped working on April 15, 2022, or whether she was still working (albeit with contentions that her job was due to "arrangements") as of April 20, 2022, and a further disparity of her salary ranging from $50,000 - $64,619. Treatment records in June 2019 reference that the Veteran was working as a school executive. She endorsed being upset that her boss was leaving. She stated that she had just started working a new schedule of four 10-hour days with Fridays off for the summer. In 2019 statements, the Veteran reported that she has been missing work for appointments. She stated that she is isolated in a "vault like office" because she cannot deal with her disabilities and her co-workers. She also endorsed missing work due to concentration problems. She explained that she is in the same position but is working with a new boss that does not understand VA appointments which stresses the Veteran. In another 2019 statement within the VA Form 9, the Veteran reported that she is unable to "deal with people in my office." She stated that she has missed work due to getting lost. She reported that forgetting days and sleeping at her desk causes concerns and issues at work. She endorsed cursing at co-workers and "not really knowing why." She reported that she is afraid she will hurt a co-worker which is why she is in an isolated room. Regarding migraine headaches, in 2015, the Veteran was noted to have characteristic prostrating attacks once a month with severe economic inadaptability. Symptoms were noted to include pulsating or throbbing pain, sensitivity to light and sound, and changes in vision. Functional impact was noted to be missing work for 2-4 days per month. In 2019, the Veteran was noted to experience headache pain, nausea, sensitivity to light, sensitivity to sound, changes in vision, and dizziness that last for more than 2 days. Characteristic prostrating attacks were noted to occur more frequently than once per month and are productive of severe economic inadaptability. Functional impact was noted to be that headaches have become more severe and prolonged and as a result, the Veteran would have difficulty maintaining a consistent schedule to perform standard occupational tasks. Regarding PTSD, in 2015, the Veteran denied experiencing issues at work with her boss or co-workers in relation to her PTSD. Her symptoms were found to be productive of 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. From 2016 forward, the Veteran was noted to have symptoms productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and / or mood. The Veteran was noted to have difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships and adapting to stressful circumstances. During the September 2022 PTSD VA examination, the Veteran reported that she was currently employed as a full-time executive administrative assistant where she has been working for 20 years. She endorsed difficulty completing job tasks as required as well as difficulty with remembering and concentrating. She reported that she tries to avoid interacting with other people as much as possible, but she does so in a professional manner when necessary. In subsequent treatment records in 2023, the Veteran continues to reference working the same position. Notably, in January 2023, the Veteran further clarified that she continues to work as an administrator at the school. She stated, "I have a quiet place where I now work and a new supervisor who understands my mental health issues." While these records are dated only after the Veteran was already awarded TDIU, they are relevant to the remaining period on appeal as they give context to the Veteran's employment and symptoms related to her PTSD. During the June 2023 VA examination for PTSD, the Veteran reported that she was last employed as a secretary for 19 years and stopped working in April 2022 "due to her mental health issues." The Veteran testified before the Board that she was employed at the time of the April 15, 2022, hearing. She testified that her PTSD has caused her to miss work. During work, she endorsed forgetting tasks and being disoriented. She explained that she was an executive administrative assistant but had previously worked for the deputy superintendent. She testified to being on track to work for the superintendent but was instead reduced to a different position because she could not function anymore. She stated that she continued working because she is unable to stop due to financial concerns. She explained that the person she worked for did not normally get an executive administrative assistant and that she is a "placeholder." When asked if the position was "created for her" she said it was not created, but rather "they put me in that area - in this office. Moved me into another officed. Switched me with somebody else. That's all it was." She stated that she believes she was assigned to a director even though they do not normally have executive administrative assistants so "they would not have to let me go right now." She believes it was a favor. The Veteran testified that if she worked in a different school district, she does not think she would be hired. She stated that the person that helped her was a superior that knew what she is going through but there is a new director in the same position now that is her supervisor. The Veteran was worried that the new director did not understand what she was going through. Credibility / Probative Value of the Veteran's Lay Statements In rendering this decision, the Board considered the Veteran's lay statements describing her work history, work "accommodations," and symptomatology leading to her unemployment, but finds these statements to be of little probative value compared to the objective evidence of record. As outlined above, the Veteran has contradicted herself numerous times rendering her an unreliable historian. When evaluating the credibility of lay statements, in particular, the Board may consider whether the statements conflict with and are consistent with other statements or evidence, the potential bias of the witness, Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and the level of detail of the information reported, Gardin v. Shinseki, 613 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (affirming rejection of lay evidence based on finding that it was vague and inconsistent with the record). And the Board may reject such statements if it finds them to be mistaken, incorrect, untrustworthy, or otherwise unreliable. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79, 84 (2006). As outlined above, in regard to the Veteran's work history, her income, when she specifically stopped working, why she stopped working, the circumstances of her work prior to stopping working, and so forth have been inconsistent and contradicted in her own statements during the period on appeal. On her VA Form 21-8940 dated April 20, 2022, the Veteran contended she was still working and earning an income over $64,000, whereas in June 2023, she contended she stopped working on April 15, 2022, and never earned more than $50,000 in any fiscal year. Subsequent treatment records, moreover, reference the Veteran's continued employment at least through part of 2023. Thus, it is entirely unclear when the Veteran actually stopped working despite her signed statements on these contradictory VA Forms 21-8940. Notwithstanding the contradiction, the Veteran has specifically contended that her employment (however long it lasted) was protected. Her contentions regarding the circumstances of this "protected" work environment have also been inconsistent. She testified that she was relocated from a cubicle to a singular office as an accommodation whereas she later noted the office to be a "vault," which aggravated her PTSD symptoms. Her testimony suggested both that the move was an accomodation but also the opposite, that it was part of her new job function and that the office environment worsened her condition and expedited her need to quit. She also testified that she did not think she would be able to obtain a new job if she applied elsewhere and that her working "situation" was a favor to her. On the other hand, she contradicted herself with whether her job position was "created for her" or was not created for her. On the one hand, she testified that the position was not created for her, but rather she was just moved to an office that was unoccupied at the time. On the other hand, she testified that the position itself was created for her as her superior did not normally have an executive administrative assistant. She also said that she had a new supervisor who did not understand her PTSD disability or the medical appointments she had to attend, which seems to cut against the idea that her employer created a job for her or otherwise gave her accommodations out of the ordinary of other employees. Significantly, despite the RO requesting information from the employer, the employer did not provide any corroborating information to substantiate when the Veteran left employment, under what circumstances, whether accommodations were in place, and, if so, what such accommodations were in place. The Veteran did not provide a signed/filled-out VA Form 21-4192 to allow for the RO to obtain such information from her employer. Although failure to complete the form is not fatal to a TDIU claim in and of itself, her failure to do so deprives the Board of information as to the Veteran's complete employment circumstances necessary to address the claim for TDIU. "The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence." Wood, 1 Vet. App. at 193. Her failure to allow this development is particularly fatal here where there are serious inconsistencies in the Veteran's testimony and written lay statements pertaining the circumstances of her last employment and the information could have resolved those inconsistencies. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Board finds numerous disparities and contradictions throughout the appellate time in the Veteran's lay statements that overall renders the Veteran an unreliable historian. To be clear, the Board is not necessarily disputing the Veteran's honesty. Whether inconsistencies in the Veteran's statements throughout time are due to memory issues, or honest misstatements of dates, places, and figures, the point remains her lay statements cannot be taken at face value and, for those reasons are assigned less probative value compared to the objective evidence of record. See McLendon, 20 Vet.App. at 84. Prior to June 30, 2016 Again, prior to June 30, 2016, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds there is insufficient evidence to substantiate a reasonable possibility that the Veteran was unemployable solely because of her service-connected disabilities prior to June 30, 2016. In fact, during this limited period prior to June 30, 2016, the Veteran was undoubtedly employed as an executive administrative assistant. She herself has not contented she was unemployed at any time prior to April 2022 as evidence by both VA Forms 21-8940. While the Veteran has raised the contention that said employment was protected, her contended accommodations occurred sometime around 2019. That is, the Veteran discussed her changed position and location in the office versus cubicles first in 2019 without referring to any time prior to that. The record lacks any contentions of accommodations from July 2015 through June 2016. Rather, the record suggests during this period that the Veteran did not have issues at work. Indeed, the Board finds probative that within her 2015 VA examination for PTSD, she denied experiencing issues at work with her boss or co-workers in relation to her PTSD. Moreover, at the time, she did not make any suggestions of receiving accommodations at work. As noted above, the RO attempted to get further information from the Veteran's employer, but the Veteran did not cooperate with such efforts. The RO sent the Veteran a development letter in May 2023 asking for the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-8940 as well as a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefit. To date, however, the Veteran has only completed a VA Form 21-8940. Although failure to complete the form is not fatal to a TDIU claim in and of itself, her failure to do so deprives the Board of information as to the Veteran's complete employment circumstances necessary to address the claim for TDIU. "The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Thus, the Board will consider the Veteran's claim without the valuable information that would have otherwise been provided by a completed VA 21-4192. Here, without having a VA Form 21-4192 completed by the Veteran's employer, the Board is unable to ascertain whether any contended accommodations were in place prior to the Veteran's reference in 2019. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds insufficient evidence to substantiate a reasonable possibility that the Veteran is unemployable because of service-connected disabilities and, thus, finds referral for extraschedular consideration is not warranted. The Board nonetheless is required to consider the merits of the Veteran's TDIU appeal. See Snider v. McDonough, 35 Vet. App. 1 (2021). In that regard, the Board finds TDIU is not warranted here on an extraschedular basis because the Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not render her unemployable during this limited period. As discussed above, the Veteran was employed during this period. While earnings have not been received for this time, the Veteran reported earning $50,000 in 2022, which is above the poverty threshold. Additionally, the Veteran has not contended, nor does the record suggest, that her employment during this period was protected. As discussed above, the Veteran's contentions of accommodations were first raised in 2019 and there is no evidence to suggest the contended accommodations were in effect in 2015-2016. Regarding the non-economic component of Ray, there is no doubt the Veteran's service-connected disabilities had impairing symptomatology. The evidence of record, however, indicates her service-connected disabilities did not preclude her from obtaining or maintaining substantially gainful employment prior to June 2016. Rather, the record shows that the Veteran was gainfully employed during this limited period. The Board finds the Veteran was capable of substantially gainful work prior to June 30, 2016, and was in fact employed in a position that was neither marginal nor protected during that time. Accordingly, not only is referral for extraschedular consideration not warranted, but entitlement to a TDIU on an extraschedular basis is not warranted as the persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities precluded substantial gainful employment prior to June 30, 2016. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. From June 30, 2016, and prior to April 16, 2022 As indicated above, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities meet the threshold criteria for a schedular TDIU as of June 30, 2016. The Board finds, however, schedular TDIU is not warranted. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has been unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment due to her service-connected disabilities during this period. Rather, the evidence indicates that the Veteran was employed full-time as an executive administrative assistant during this period despite the functional limitations of her service-connected disabilities and that said employment was not marginal or protected. It has not been disputed that the Veteran was employed during this time. In fact, although the Veteran has been inconsistent in identifying when she stopped working, it is clear from both the April 2022 and June 2023 VA Forms 21-8940 that she never contended unemployment earlier than April 16, 2022 (i.e., on her June 2023 VA Form 21-8940, she indicated her last day of employment was April 15, 2022). Again, this contention is contradicted by other records, to include her own lay statements and subsequent treatment records referencing that she continued to work at least through part of 2023. Nonetheless, it is not reasonably in dispute that the Veteran was employed throughout this entire period. The Veteran has not contended that her salary was marginal nor does the record so suggest. Within the VA Forms 21-8940, she listed her salary, albeit inconsistently, as anywhere from $50,000 to $64,219. Any salary within that range, however, is indisputably above the poverty threshold. Generally, marginal employment shall be deemed to exist when a veteran's earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a); Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342, 355-56 (2000) ("substantially gainful employment" for TDIU purposes is met where the annual earned income exceeds the poverty threshold for "one person," irrespective of the number of hours or days actually worked and without regard to any prior income history). Here, however, the Veteran's most recent reported salary exceeds the poverty threshold. The Veteran has specifically contended that her employment was protected. She testified that she was relocated from cubicles to a singular office in order to separate herself from other co-workers due to difficulties getting along. On the other hand, she indicated that this relocation was not an accommodation, but something afforded her because there was a vacant office and, in any case, the new working environment aggravated her disability. She referred to this location as a vault and lacking windows within the record. She also testified that she did not think she would be able to obtain a new job if she applied elsewhere, but on the other hand noted she did not think her current supervisor understood her disability and was fearful she would lose her job. She testified that this working situation was a favor to her. During the hearing, again, she contradicted herself. That is, on the one hand she testified that the position was not created for her, but rather she was just moved to an office that was unoccupied at the time and she felt that her new supervisor did not understand her disability or why she had so many medical appointments and it would be a matter of time that she'd likely be let go. On the other hand, she testified that the position itself was created for her as her superior did not normally have an executive administrative assistant and that it was only because of her longevity there and that they knew her. When asked who "they" were, she did not have a satisfactory answer other than indicating the school as a whole. Again, the RO attempted to fill in some of these blanks or rectify the inconsistencies by obtaining information from her employer directly. The Veteran was asked to fill out a VA Form 21-4192 so that such information could be obtained, but she declined to return the form to the VA. Again, her failure to participate in the development of her claim deprives the Board of necessary information to validate some otherwise confusing and contradictory information she provided. While not fatal in and of itself, the Board cannot otherwise reconcile the inconsistencies where, as outlined below, her lay statements have proven to be unreliable and lacking in probative value. See Wood, 1 Vet. App. at 193. Thus, the Board will consider the Veteran's claim without the valuable information that would have otherwise been provided by a completed VA 21-4192. The Board lacks any information necessary to corroborate the Veteran's contentions of accommodations and whether said accommodations amount to a protected work environment. Even at face-value, the Board considered the contentions, but finds her description of her work environment is not tantamount to a protected work environment. Where a veteran's disabilities do not result in lost income or where legally required accommodations permit a veteran to maintain gainful employment, an award of TDIU does not serve its intended purpose. Cantrell v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 382 (2017) (Concurring Opinion, Lance, J., "Where a claimant's employer is required by law to provide reasonable accommodations pursuant to the ADA and those accommodations allow the claimant to engage in a substantially gainful occupation, a TDIU award would, in effect, constitute a second paycheck on the back of the taxpayer."). Marginal employment may also be held to exist on a facts-found basis, including when employment resulting in earned annual income exceeding the poverty threshold for one person was performed in a "protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop." 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Board notes that protected or sheltered work environment has not been defined for VA purposes. In Arline v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 238, 259-61 (2021), the Court noted that Chief Judge Bartley's dissenting opinion provided helpful guidance for assessing the meaning of "employment in a protected environment." The three factors identified by Judge Bartley focused on: (1) the type and extent of the accommodations the employee received at the job; (2) employer behavior but not necessarily intent; and (3) economic factors such as the amount of income from the job. The definition VA suggested in its brief was employment in "a non-competitive workplace separated from workplaces in the open labor market and in which hiring, and compensation decisions are motivated by a benevolent attitude toward the employee." In this case, the Veteran contends she was provided an office (rather than a cubicle) that was otherwise unoccupied. She contends she was moved from executive administrative assistant of one supervisor to another supervisor, whom she claims is someone who would not normally have an assistant (thus, she infers the position was created for her - although she contradicts this inference in other statements). Neither of these changes in work amount to a protected work environment as contemplated by VA regulations. Again, the Board emphasizes that these lay statements have little probative value as they are not objectively substantiated and are limited to the Veteran's unreliable testimony. The Board's denial of the TDIU claim here is primarily based in finding the Veteran was substantially and gainfully employed throughout the appellate time period and her contentions of a protected work environment are simply not credible. However, even assuming arguendo that these accommodations existed for some time of her employment, the Board finds they do not render her employment "protected." Based on the present evidence of record, the contended accommodations would not diminish the core job duties and responsibilities or impair the Veteran's ability to perform successfully in her a position. While the Veteran stated that she was an administrative assistant for a person who did not normally have an administrative assistant, the Board finds significant she held the same job title throughout this claim as well as salary. At other times, she claims that this move was a "demotion," which cuts against her overall contention of a protected work environment. If the Veteran was indeed demoted because of poor job performance or poor attendance, then clearly her job was not protecting her from the consequences of such actions or otherwise exhibiting a benevolent attitude. She also testified that her supervisor did not understand her disability and she feared being let go. Again, this cuts against her other statements that she would not be able to find a job elsewhere in a place that did not "know her." In other words, although the Veteran attempted to paint a picture of a protected work environment, she nonetheless conceded ad nauseum during her testimony before the Board that her supervisor does not and would not protect her from the ordinary consequences of poor performance, poor attendance, or quality/conduct reprimands. Further, the mere fact that the Veteran was permitted to perform her job duties in an office rather than a cubicle also does not indicate a protected work environment. The Board finds significant that the office space was not created for her, but rather she was given permission to assume an office that was otherwise not occupied. This cuts against a claim that the office provision was an accommodation. In short, notwithstanding her inconsistent descriptions, the Veteran's described work environment does not amount to a protected work environment nor can any of her statements be corroborated since she failed to provide a VA Form 21-4192. The Board finds the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the conclusion that a position was "created" for her or that office space was "created" for her in order to accommodate her disability and allow her to keep working without the ordinary consequences of poor performance or poor attendance. In fact, the Veteran has conceded to the contrary - that she was demoted, and she did fear for her job security. Clearly based on her own testimony her supervisor did not shield her from such consequences or otherwise exhibit a benevolent intent. The Board does not doubt that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities cause impairing symptomatology. This impairment of function, however, is recognized by the ratings assigned to each of her service-connected disabilities. In summary, the Board finds the Veteran was employed during this period on appeal and said employment was not marginal or protected. Accordingly, the evidence is persuasively against the claim. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable and entitlement to TDIU on a schedular basis from June 30, 2016, to April 16, 2022, is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for a low back disability is remanded. The Veteran contends she has a low back disability that is related to service. Upon further review, the Board notes there may be outstanding Reserves military personnel records and STRs. The Veteran's military personnel records reference release to Reserves with an obligation through 1997. While her active duty STRs lack a separation examination, within 7 months of separation, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination pertaining to this claim in 1992 wherein she endorsed experiencing persistent back pain since service. Thereafter, however, treatment records lack complaints related to the back until around 2011. Although, the record does contain lay statements of persistent back pain since service. Thus, it is possible the Veteran's Reserves records contain complaints relevant to this claim, especially considering her Reserves service occurred during a period in which there are otherwise no related medical treatment records pertaining to the back. Accordingly, remand is necessary to attempt to obtain any outstanding Reserves records through 1997. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request complete service personnel records and service treatment records for the Veteran's periods of service in the United States Army Reserves through 1997. 2. After the above development, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.C. Allen, 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.