**UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS**

No. 91-1376

[Gerald F. Babchak, Appellant]{.smallcaps},

[v.]{.smallcaps}

[Anthony J. Principi,]{.smallcaps}

[Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.]{.smallcaps}

On Appeal from the Board of Veterans\' Appeals

(Decided November 16, 1992 )

*Kathleen M. McDonald* was on the brief for appellant.

*James A. Endicott, Jr*., General Counsel, *David T. Landers*, Acting
Assistant General Counsel, *R. Randall Campbell*, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel, and *Peter M. Donawick* were on the brief for appellee.

Before NEBEKER, *Chief Judge*, and KRAMER and HOLDAWAY, *Associate
Judges*.

HOLDAWAY, *Associate Judge*: Appellant, Gerald F. Babchak, who served in
the United States Marine Corps from 1966-1969, appeals a decision of the
Board of Veterans\' Appeals (Board or BVA) which denied him a total
disability rating based on unemployability and entitlement to a further
increase in his rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The
Regional Office raised his rating from 10% to 50% for his PTSD. His
appeal to the BVA asked for a 70% rating. The Court holds that the facts
in the record have been inadequately developed. There is, therefore, an
insufficient basis for this Court to either affirm or reverse the
factual findings below. The case will be remanded.

The BVA determined that the degree of appellant\'s PTSD more closely
reflected considerable impairment of industrial and social adaptability
(50%) than it did severe impairment (70%). The Board based its
determination on an examination conducted at a Department of Veterans
Affairs (formerly the Veterans\' Administration) (VA) facility in May
1989. *Gerald F. Babchak*, BVA 90-53700, at 6 (Apr. 15, 1991). The
results of this examination indicate that the veteran is oriented to
reality and has adequate judgment and insight. On the other hand, there
is evidence from Dr. Anderson, a private psychologist who was treating
appellant on a weekly basis, that appellant cannot interact with other
people at work and is \"grossly impaired.\"

The problem with the findings of both the VA and Dr. Anderson is that
neither examination placed an \"emphasis upon the limitation of activity
imposed by the disabling condition.\" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1991). The VA
examination does not consider whether appellant\'s PTSD has limited his
employability. Dr. Anderson, on the other hand, has not considered
whether appellant might pursue a less stressful job. His clinical notes
are geared almost entirely to appellant\'s apparent inability to perform
the employment he had with his county government, which included
stressful confrontations with those suspected of violating county health
regulations. This falls short of establishing that appellant\'s PTSD
prevents him from functioning under ordinary employment conditions. 38
C.F.R. § 4.10 (1991). In a similar case, *Bowers v. Derwinski*, 2
Vet.App. 675 (1992), where the facts had been inadequately developed, we
remanded for further development of the facts. We will do the same in
this case.

Appellant\'s claim for total disability because of individual
unemployment is inextricably intertwined with the degree of impairment
that is ultimately adjudicated. *See* 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (1991).
Accordingly, upon readjudication the Board will address this issue as
well. The decision of the Board is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED
for action consistent with this opinion.