BVA Case 23-5618: Ptsd

McDonough ,the appellant argues that remand is required for the Board to use the correct test for 'employment in a protected environment,'that his employment did or did not shield him 'in some respect from competition in the employment market.

The Secretary generally disputes the appellant's arguments and urges the Court to affirm the Board's decision,asserting that the Board's decision is not clearly erroneous and is supported by adequate reasons or bases.

Whether a veteran is unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment is a finding of fact that this Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard.

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

As with any material issue of fact or law,the Board must provide a statement of reasons or bases that is adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

The Board denied entitlement to TDIU because the [appellant]has failed to cooperate in the development of his claim and the evidence of record fails to otherwise 6 Case:23-5618 Page: 7 of 13 Filed:11/25/2024 establish that the [appellant]has been precluded from gainful employment since leaving service as a result of service-connected disabilities.

Regarding the appellant's failure to cooperate,the Board determined that,because the appellant did not adequately respond to VA's requests for information regarding his work history, [t]he record is unclear as to the dates during which [he]was employed during the appeal period, as well as the nature and earnings from any such employment.

The Board noted that the appellant's initial application for TDIU in March 2017 reflected that he had not worked since service,while his January 2023 application reflected that he was employed from 2017 to the present with the shipping company.