him unemployable. R. at 23-24. As noted above, there is no dispute that the appellant’s disabilities, service connected or not, impair his ability to work. There is also no dispute that the appellant is physically able to perform sedentary work. Because the Board ultimately concluded that the appellant is not precluded from all types of employment, to the extent the Board could have or should have more precisely parsed the extent that was caused by his service-connected disabilities versus his non-service-connected disabilities, the appellant has not demonstrated prejudice and the Court finds that any such error is harmless. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) (providing that the Court shall take due account of the rule of prejudicial error); Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 540, 546 (1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396,
holding that transfer was not warranted where it was not clear that identified former employees of the defendant would be unwilling to testify holding that it is unfair to the district court to other litigants and to the movant to impose a duty on the district court to search and sift the factual record for the benefit of the defaulting party holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit holding that strict adherence to the reasonsorbases requirement is not warranted where it would impose additional burdens on the board with no benefit flowing to the veteran holding that it is not