Case 26003159

TRACIE N. WESNER · 2026 · Case ID: 26003159

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from February 1970 to October 1971 and February 1973 to January 1976, including combat service for which he was awarded the Purple Heart and Combat Infantry Badge, appeals the denial of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) for the period prior to November 1, 2012. The Board found that for the period prior to November 1, 2012, the evidence indicated the veteran was gainfully employed, thus denying TDIU for that period. However, for the period starting November 1, 2012, the Board found the evidence to be in approximate balance regarding the veteran's ability to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment due to his service-connected disabilities, specifically PTSD, left wrist shell fragment wounds, tinnitus, and scars. The Board applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine, granting TDIU for the period beginning November 1, 2012. Key evidence included multiple VA examinations and vocational evaluations detailing the veteran's PTSD symptoms, tinnitus, and left wrist limitations, which were found to impede his ability to work. While some VA opinions suggested employability, the Board found them internally inconsistent or not probative, giving greater weight to private and updated VA vocational assessments that highlighted significant functional impairments and the synergistic impact of his conditions on his ability to meet competitive employment standards.

Rationale

Evidence indicated veteran was gainfully employed prior to November 1, 2012.; Veteran's employment with USPS as letter carrier from May 1987 to October 31, 2012, constituted gainful employment.

Special Benefit

TDIU

Docket No.

13-12 403

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26003159
Decision Date: 03/10/26 Archive Date: 03/10/26

DOCKET NO. 13-12 403
DATE: March 10, 2026

ORDER

For the period prior to November 1, 2012, entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied.

For the period starting November 1, 2012, entitlement to a TDIU is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Prior to November 1, 2012, the evidence indicates the Veteran was gainfully employed.

2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities rendered him unable to obtain and maintain gainful employment consistent with his education, training, and work experience since November 1, 2012.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. For the period prior to November 1, 2012, the criteria for TDIU are not met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1155, 5107, 5110; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.400, 3.340, 3.341, 4.16, 4.19.

2. Since November 1, 2012, the criteria for TDIU are met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1155, 5107, 5110; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.400, 3.340, 3.341, 4.16, 4.19.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from February 1970 to October 1971 and February 1973 to January 1976. He was awarded the Purple Heart and Combat Infantry Badge, among other decorations.

This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2011 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

This case has a lengthy procedural history. For the sake of brevity, the Board will provide an abbreviated summary. While the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was pending before the Board on appeal from an April 2011 rating decision, the Veteran raised the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, due, in part, to his PTSD. As such, a TDIU claim was part and parcel of that appeal. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). In a February 2023 decision, the Board denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2023, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand in which the parties agreed the Board decision should be vacated and the matter of entitlement to a TDIU remanded to the Board for further consideration. In April 2024, the Board again denied entitlement to a TDIU. In July 2024, the Board vacated the April 2024 decision finding the decision erred in failing to address pertinent evidence and remanded the case for additional development.

A TDIU may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when a veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation because of service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). In determining unemployability 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; Hersey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 91, 94 (1992); Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342 (2000). The sole fact that a Veteran is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough, as a high rating in itself is a recognition that impairment makes it difficult to obtain and keep employment. The question 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) (citing 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.15, 4.16(a)). See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (noting that,
Vet. App. 342 (2000). The sole fact that a Veteran is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough, as a high rating in itself is a recognition that impairment makes it difficult to obtain and keep employment. The question 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) (citing 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.15, 4.16(a)). See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (noting that, while "the rating schedule is based on the 'average impairment in earning capacity caused by a disability,'... entitlement to TDIU is based on an individual's particular circumstance").

In Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58 (2019), the Court defined the term "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" to include two components: one economic and one non-economic. 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 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. Attention should be given to the veteran's history, education, skills, and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability (both exertional and non-exertional) to perform the types of activities required by the occupation at issue (e.g., lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, as well as auditory and visual limitations); and whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue (e.g., memory, concentration, ability to adapt to change, handle work place stress, get along with coworkers, and demonstrate reliability and productivity).

In short, an award of a TDIU is an individualized determination, specific to a veteran's particular circumstances, e.g., their history, education, skills, and training. See Todd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 79, 85 (2014). It does not require a showing of 100 percent unemployability. See Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Rather, the ultimate question is whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the Veteran can find employment. See Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993).

As noted in the February 2023 and April 2024 Board decisions, the Veteran meets the schedular requirements for the award of a TDIU throughout the pendency of the appeal. During the period on appeal, service connection was in effect for the following disabilities: PTSD, rated as 50 percent disabling; left wrist shell fragment wounds (hereinafter left wrist SFW), rated as 10 percent disabling; tinnitus, rated as 10 percent disabling; chloracne, rated as 10 percent disabling from May 22, 2013; bilateral hearing loss, rated as noncompensable from May 22, 2013; and scars of the right wrist, right thigh, and left ring and little fingers, each rated as noncompensable, for a combined disability rating of 60 percent.

While the Veteran does not have a combined rating of 70 percent or more, his PTSD, left wrist SFW, and tinnitus all resulted from a single combat-related injury. As such, they are considered a single disability under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a)(2), (4). Applying the Combined Ratings Table to determine the proper disability rating for one disability resulting from a common etiology results in 60 percent disability rating. Thus, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU throughout the pendency of the appeal.

On a July 2015 VA Form 21-8940, the Veteran reported working for the United States Postal Service (USPS) as a letter carrier from May 1987 to October 31, 2011. He noted that he left his employment as a letter carrier due to his service-connected disabilities and that he had not sought employment since leaving the USPS. He reported having four years of high school. Regarding the dates of the Veteran's employment, on a December 2022 VA Form
rating for one disability resulting from a common etiology results in 60 percent disability rating. Thus, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU throughout the pendency of the appeal.

On a July 2015 VA Form 21-8940, the Veteran reported working for the United States Postal Service (USPS) as a letter carrier from May 1987 to October 31, 2011. He noted that he left his employment as a letter carrier due to his service-connected disabilities and that he had not sought employment since leaving the USPS. He reported having four years of high school. Regarding the dates of the Veteran's employment, on a December 2022 VA Form 21-8940, the Veteran reported that he had not worked since November 1, 2012. See. Similarly, a May 2025 VA Form 21-4192 from the Office of Personnel Management indicates the Veteran was employed by USPS as a letter carrier from May 1987 to October 31, 2012 wherein he retired.

A June 2012 private psychological evaluation from W.A., Psy.D. notes the Veteran had prior work experience loading and unloading trucks, in paper manufacturing, as a solider, as union laborer, as restaurant work, in management, and 25 years of experience as a letter carrier. W.A. noted the Veteran reported "significant difficulties with management" and that he tended to have disagreements with authority figures in a work environment. W.A. opined that the Veteran's psychological functioning lacked predictability and consistency. He further opined the Veteran's PTSD resulted in significant cognitive difficulties, including concentration and memory problems, significant depression, that resulted in work related functional impairments.

In a December 2013 statement, the Veteran reported he had to take "early retirement...due to my anger."

A December 2013 VA audiological evaluation indicated the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus impacted his work as he did not hear things the first-time people spoke and that his tinnitus was "annoying" and negatively impacted his sleep.

A June 2014 VA PTSD examination report notes the Veteran worked as a letter carrier for 25 years but retired because he "couldn't deal with them [management]." He further noted that he planned to work until he was 65 years old, but "had to get out of there" noting he had been written up for using sick leave and had conflicts with his supervisors. Regarding his symptoms, the examiner stated the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by inter alia chronic sleep impairment, difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work relationships, and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a worklike setting. Regarding employability, the examiner opined the Veteran would have mild to moderate impairment in responding to coworkers, supervisors, or the general public, but was not impaired in his ability to sustain concentration, to perform simple tasks, concentration to persistence and pace, or ability to respond appropriately to changes in a work setting. In support of that finding, the examiner cited the Veteran's 25-year history of employment as a letter carrier for the USPS.

In August 2017, a VA audiologist acknowledged the Veteran's hearing loss impacted his ability to work as it required him to ask people to repeat themselves. Nevertheless, the audiologist opined the Veteran's hearing loss was mild enough that he would not be expected to experience significant difficulties in most listening environments.

A September 2017 VA PTSD examination report again noted the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by inter alia chronic sleep impairment, irritable behavior, difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work relationships, and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a worklike setting. The examiner opined that the Veteran's PTSD did not preclude occupational functioning. In support of that finding the examiner noted the Veteran was employed by the USPS for 25 years. Although it was acknowledged the Veteran's irritability and detachment from others would best be accommodated in an environment with limited contact with the public or groups of coworkers, the examiner opined there was insufficient evidence to suggest his symptoms would impede his ability to obtain or maintain gainful employment considering his 25 year employment history with the USPS.

In an August 2022 statement, J.H. noted the Veteran "didn't have a lot of tolerance for stupid...Being around people just doesn't bring out the best in" the Veteran. He noted the Veteran became frustrated and irritated easily and that the Veteran's employment with the USPS was "not easy...because it was hard for him to cope with others as well as upper management. He noted the Veteran had not been employed since leaving the USPS "because he just can't put himself back where he was."

In an August 2022 statement, M.H. stated the Veteran's wrist was painful
symptoms would impede his ability to obtain or maintain gainful employment considering his 25 year employment history with the USPS.

In an August 2022 statement, M.H. stated the Veteran's wrist was painful following repetitive motion. She noted that while working for the USPS, the Veteran would come home with wrist pain and had to ice his wrists. She further noted his wrist pain also caused difficulty using certain tools.

A November 2022 psychiatric evaluation from G.T. indicates the Veteran dropped out of high school prior to joining the military but subsequently obtained his general equivalency degree (GED). It was noted he studied business for two years at community college but did not obtain a degree. G.T. opined that after reviewing the evidence of record, the Veteran's PTSD was the primary cause of his inability to work. It further noted that there were also additional functional impacts from his left wrist disability and tinnitus. The evaluator acknowledged the Veteran was able to work for many years and functioned in a "very marginal way" and "had much difficulty making it through the day." Specifically, the evaluator noted the Veteran had difficulty interacting appropriately with co-workers and supervisors and avoided being around people as much as possible.

The evaluator acknowledged that although the Veteran was able to care for himself and visit the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) post, that was far different than a competitive work environment where there would be everyday stress and demands that he would be unable to meet. It was noted the Veteran's occupational choices would be constricted due to his need to have "limited contact with others and his limited educational background." The evaluator noted the Veteran's report that he had planned to work until he was 65 years old, but left the workforce early, due to his difficulties with interpersonal interactions secondary to his PTSD symptoms. Accordingly, the evaluator opined the Veteran's PTSD, tinnitus, and left wrist symptoms prevented him from obtaining and maintaining gainful employment consistent with his vocational history and limited education.

A February 2024 vocational evaluation from F. Fazzolari noted the Veteran's PTSD resulted in suspiciousness towards others, unprovoked irritability and anger, a need to isolate, panic attacks, and episodes of anger and irritability. That the Veteran's panic attacks and sleep disturbances resulted in fatigue, an inability to concentrate, and decreased motivation. Regarding his tinnitus and hearing loss, the evaluator noted that throughout the interview, the Veteran had difficulty understanding so the evaluator had to speak at a slower pace, speak at a higher volume, and frequently repeat questions. Regarding the Veteran's left wrist SFW, the Veteran reported ongoing pain that worsened with lifting, handling, grasping, and/or manipulating objects. It was noted this resulted in an inability to consistently perform tasks requiring repetitive range of motion with his left hand.

The evaluator explained that all employers in a competitive labor market require basic expectations of their workers, regardless of skill or exertional level. These requirements include sustaining focus and attention for at least two hours at a time; refraining from unscheduled or prolonged breaks; attending work on a regular basis, free from excessive unscheduled absences, tardiness, or early departures; producing a certain minimal amount of work; and appropriately and effectively communicating with co-workers and supervisors to maintain a productive work environment with no more than ten percent off-task time throughout the day.

The evaluator opined that the Veteran was unable to satisfy the above standards of adequate pace, productivity, reliability, and interpersonal workplace communications due to his service-connected disabilities since at least November 2012. The evaluator explained that the Veteran's anxiety, panic attacks, suspiciousness, hypervigilance, suicidal ideation, and intrusive thoughts were distracting and rendered him off task and unproductive. The evaluator opined that such distractibility and time off task would not be tolerated by any employer at any skill or exertional level. Additionally, the evaluator noted that Veteran's tendency to isolate, as well as his anger and irritability would impede his ability to appropriately interact with the public, coworkers, and supervisors. Moreover, the Veteran's concentration and memory impairments, which impair his ability to complete tasks efficiently and without errors. The evaluator opined the Veteran's tinnitus it further compromised the Veteran's ability to maintain gainful employment as it compromised his
Veteran's anxiety, panic attacks, suspiciousness, hypervigilance, suicidal ideation, and intrusive thoughts were distracting and rendered him off task and unproductive. The evaluator opined that such distractibility and time off task would not be tolerated by any employer at any skill or exertional level. Additionally, the evaluator noted that Veteran's tendency to isolate, as well as his anger and irritability would impede his ability to appropriately interact with the public, coworkers, and supervisors. Moreover, the Veteran's concentration and memory impairments, which impair his ability to complete tasks efficiently and without errors. The evaluator opined the Veteran's tinnitus it further compromised the Veteran's ability to maintain gainful employment as it compromised his ability to communicate effectively and reliably in a competitive workplace. The evaluator explained the additional time needed to correct errors from misunderstanding would further reduce the Veteran's pace and productivity.

The evaluator explained that the Veteran's left wrist SFW compromised his ability to handle, grasp, and manipulate objects due to non -dominant wrist pain and weakness; an inability to perform work tasks requiring frequent and repetitive use of the left upper extremity; and the inability to maintain adequate pace and productivity. The evaluator opined the limitations in the Veteran's ability to utilize his left wrist would at least as likely as not prevent him from returning to his past work as a letter carrier or from performing the full range of exertional and non-exertional requirements of sedentary unskilled work on a consistent and reliable basis. In this regard, the evaluator explained that according to U.S. Department of Labor findings, 92 percent of all jobs across all exertional levels require frequent to constant use of one's hand. Accordingly, it was his professional opinion the Veteran's service-connected PTSD, tinnitus, and left wrist SFW rendered him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment, in any occupation regardless of skill or exertional level, since November 2012.

A November 2024 VA PTSD examination report again noted that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms included chronic sleep impairment, irritable behavior, difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work relationships, disturbances of mood and motivation, and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a worklike setting. In December 2024, the VA examiner provided an addendum opining the Veteran would not work well in a loud or noisy environment due to his startle symptoms and would work best in a quite environment. She further noted the Veteran would work better in a non-military environment to avoid reminders of his military service and/or time in Vietnam. She explained he would work best on an individual basis rather than group settings.

In February 2025, a VA evaluator opined the Veteran's scars on the posterior aspect of the right wrist and little finger, residuals of his SFW, had a limited but notable impact on his ability to function in an occupational environment. The evaluator acknowledged that a September 2017 evaluation indicated the scars were well-healed and not associated with instability, pain, sensory loss, or neurological impairment. However, the evaluator noted those findings were inconsistent with the other evidence of record, including the February 2024 vocational assessment wherein the Veteran reported that he had localized irritation that exacerbated by repetitive hand use. The evaluator noted that although the scars themselves did not cause significant impairment, the underlying tissue damage from the SFW may contribute to discomfort performing prolonged manual tasks such as typing, gripping, or lifting. The evaluator opined that such symptoms can lead to decreased efficiency and increased fatigue during occupational activities requiring sustained use of the right hand and wrist.

Regarding the Veteran's left wrist SFW, the VA evaluator opined that it significantly affected the Veteran's ability to function in an occupational environment. The evaluator noted the Veteran had chronic pain and limited mobility that hindered the Veteran's capacity to perform physically demanding tasks, such as lifting, gripping, and prolonged use of the wrist, which are often required in occupational settings. In this regard, the evaluator explained that the November 2022 psychiatric evaluation confirmed the Veteran experienced severe wrist pain while working at the post office, requiring him to ice the wrist after each shift. The evaluator noted that the February 2024 vocational assessment report also documented increased wrist pain in recent years, worsening with weather changes and repetitive tasks. The evaluator opined that the Veteran's chronic pain and limited mobility hindered the Veteran's capacity to perform physically demanding tasks, such as lifting, gripping, and prolonged use of the wrist, which were often required in occupational settings. The evaluator stated the evidence collectively demonstrated that the Veteran's left wrist SFW lead to functional limitations, impairing his ability to perform occupational activities involving repetitive wrist movements, heavy lifting, and sustained manual tasks.

In March 2025, a VA audiologist stated the Veteran's tinnitus may impact his ability to concentrate, communicate, and
wrist after each shift. The evaluator noted that the February 2024 vocational assessment report also documented increased wrist pain in recent years, worsening with weather changes and repetitive tasks. The evaluator opined that the Veteran's chronic pain and limited mobility hindered the Veteran's capacity to perform physically demanding tasks, such as lifting, gripping, and prolonged use of the wrist, which were often required in occupational settings. The evaluator stated the evidence collectively demonstrated that the Veteran's left wrist SFW lead to functional limitations, impairing his ability to perform occupational activities involving repetitive wrist movements, heavy lifting, and sustained manual tasks.

In March 2025, a VA audiologist stated the Veteran's tinnitus may impact his ability to concentrate, communicate, and sleep. He further noted that it may also cause agitation due to lack of sleep, difficulty concentrating, or difficulty performing well in a quiet work environment. Nevertheless, the audiologist opined that tinnitus was not known to reduce or impede someone's ability to work in physical or sedentary type employment. Regarding the Veteran's hearing loss, the audiologist opined that the Veteran's hearing loss may impact his ability to communicate, use the telephone, and would cause difficulty working in noisy or reverberant environments. The audiologist explained that the Veteran may not perform well in a job that required him to frequently communicate verbally, to hear in group settings such as meetings, or to conduct business over the telephone. Nevertheless, hearing loss would not prevent physical or sedentary employment because no amount of hearing loss and/or tinnitus can prevent employability.

In November 2025, F. Fazzolari rendered an addendum opinion. He noted that he was asked to review the updated records and provide his professional opinion. After summarizing the updated evidence, the evaluator opined that it was his opinion that the Veteran continued to be unable to engage substantially gainful employment, regardless of skill or exertional level, due to his PTSD, tinnitus, and left wrist SFW from, at least, November 2012 to present. He opined that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms would preclude sustained focus on work tasks, cause him to fail minimal production standards, and impeded his ability to appropriately interact with others as required by employers. Moreover, there was no field of employment that would allow an employee to work in absolute isolation considering the Veteran's level of vocational experience. Therefore, because of these limitations the Veteran would have difficulty adhering to a structured work schedule, would struggle maintaining pace and concentration, and struggle to interact appropriately. He opined this would require an employer to provide regular redirection, instruction, and encouragement at a level not conducive in a competitive employment situation.

Regarding the Veteran's tinnitus, the evaluator acknowledged the VA opinion indicating that tinnitus would not impede the Veteran's ability to work. However, F. Fazzolari disagreed with the VA opinion and criticized the opinion for failing to recognize that tinnitus directly impacted employability as it negatively impacted the Veteran's concentration and ability to remain on task. He also noted that although the December 2024 VA opinion noted the Veteran should work in a quite environment to accommodate his PTSD, doing so would aggravate the functional impairment from his tinnitus because, as conceded by the VA audiologist, the Veteran's tinnitus would cause increased difficulty performing well in a quiet work environment. Therefore, the synergy of the Veteran's service-connected conditions created a greater impact on his ability to work than when these limitations are considered individually. The evaluator noted the Veteran had only a high school degree and some college coursework, was unable to perform the physical duties required in his prior job as a letter carrier due to his wrist disability, and lacked transferable skills required for sedentary employment. Consequently, the Veteran had been unable to follow substantially gainful employment since November 2012 due to his service-connected PTSD, tinnitus, and left wrist SFW.

Given the foregoing and resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds the evidence is at least in a state of approximate balance regarding whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities precluded substantially gainful employment since November 1, 2012.

Regarding the period prior to November 1, 2012, the Board finds the Veteran was gainfully employed. The Board acknowledge the Veteran reported he last worked on October 31, 2011 on his July 2015 VA Form 21-8940. Nevertheless, that date appears to be a typographical error as his December 2022 VA Form 21-8940 and information from OPM indicates he last worked on October 31, 2012. See also January 2, 2014 statement (reporting he had been unemployed since November 2012) and Social Security Earnings Record received December 8, 2022 (noting gainful earnings through 2012). Moreover, the Veteran has not asserted, and the evidence does not otherwise suggest that the Veteran's employment with the USPS constituted a protected work environment. See LaBruzza v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 111, 123-24 (2024) (defining a protected environment as a "a lower-income position that, due to the veteran's service-connected disability or disabilities, is shielded in some respect from competition in the employment market"). Thus, the Board finds that prior to November 1, 2012, the Veteran was gainfully employed, which is a bar to an award of TDIU. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Thus, the claim must be denied for the prior to November 1, 2012.

For the period since November 1, 2012, the evidence is, at the very least, in a state of approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities precluded employment consistent with his high school education and occupational experience in physical labor. Specifically, the Veteran worked inter alia as a letter carrier, loading dock worker, manufacturing employee, manager, and infantryman. See December 2022 VA Form 21-8940 and June 2012 W.A. psychological evaluation. Therefore, his occupational experience was physical in nature and required manual dexterity and repetitive hand use over time, which would be precluded by his service-connected left wrist SFW and right and left wrist scars. See e.g., February 2025 VA opinion (noting the Veteran's right wrist and little finger scars would have a "notable impact on the Veteran's ability to function in an occupational environment...[and] lead to decreased efficiency and increased fatigue during occupational activities requiring sustained use of the right hand and wrist,") and May 2025 VA opinion (noting the Veteran's left wrist SFW, "significantly affects the Veteran's ability to function in an occupational environment...[and] leads to functional limitations, impairing his ability to perform occupational activities involving repetitive wrist movements, heavy lifting, and sustained manual tasks"). Thus, the Board finds the Veteran's service-connected disabilities precluded physical employment consistent with his education and work history.

Even assuming arguendo, the Veteran could obtain sedentary employment, his service-connected disabilities also precluded him from performing the necessary physical and mental tasks required for sedentary employment. Specifically, as noted above, his left wrist SFW and right and left wrist scars precluded the required manual dexterity and repetitive hand motions to perform even sedentary tasks in a competitive work environment. See e.g., February 2024 and November 2025 F. Fazzolari evaluations (noting 92 percent of all jobs across all exertional levels require frequent to constant use of one's hand and opining the Veteran's left wrist SFW "compromised ability to handle, grasp, and manipulate objects due to non -dominant wrist pain and weakness," which precluded performance of the full range of occupational tasks required for sedentary employment). Additionally, the evidence indicates that the Veteran's PTSD would greatly impede his performance of mental tasks and adherence to social and reliability requirements needed for gainful employment in a competitive workplace. See November 2022 psychiatric evaluation from G.T. (noting the Veteran would be unable to handle the stress and demands of a competitive work environment and opining his interpersonal difficulties secondary to his PTSD were the cause of his early retirement).

In so finding, the Board acknowledges the VA opinions of record suggesting that the Veteran was capable of gainful employment. See e.g., June 2014 and September 2017 VA PTSD examination reports and March 2025 audiologist opinion. Nevertheless, the Board finds those opinions are not probative. The June 2014 and March 2025 VA opinions are internally inconsistent. Although the June 2014 examiner opined the Veteran would not be impaired in his ability to respond appropriately to changes in a work setting, the examiner earlier stated the Veteran would have difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including a worklike setting. Similarly, the March 2025 audiologist acknowledged various ways tinnitus would limit the Veteran's occupational abilities but thereafter opined that tinnitus was "not known to reduce or impede someone's ability to work." The limitations previously described by the audiologist are impediments because they cause difficulties in the Veteran's ability to work. Absent further explanation to reconcile the seemingly conflicting findings, the opinions are not probative. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (holding a medical opinion must contain clear conclusions with supporting data, and a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two). Finally, although the September 2017examiner opined the Veteran's PTSD would not preclude occupational functioning, the examiner improperly relied on evidence predating the Veteran's retirement and failed to address evidence suggesting the Veteran's worsening symptoms caused his early retirement. See e.g., Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (U.S. 1994) (stating that "[w]here entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern").

As such, based on the probative medical, vocational, and lay evidence of record, the Board finds the evidence is, at the very least, in a state of approximate balance regarding whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities prevented him from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment since November 1, 2012. In so reaching the above conclusion, the Board has appropriately applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine in this case. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Tracie N. Wesner

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Anderson

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer