Citation Nr: 0811109 Decision Date: 04/03/08 Archive Date: 04/14/08 DOCKET NO. 05-14 169A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma THE ISSUE Whether the ending date of October 28, 2004, for entitlement to VA educational assistance benefits under the provisions of Chapter 30 of Title 38 of the United States Code is correct. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Ferguson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from April 1993 to July 1999. This matter returns to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) following a Remand issued in August 2007. This matter was originally on appeal from a March 2005 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required. REMAND For the reasons explained in greater detail below, the Board finds that this case must again be remanded to allow the RO to comply with prior remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In August 2007, the Board remanded the issue on appeal. At that time, the Board noted that there were several discrepancies in the evidence of record and instructed the RO to obtain an official transcript or other certification from the University of Phoenix that lists the specific dates of completed coursework and attendance for the veteran from 2004 and, subsequently, readjudicate the veteran's claim. The record reflects that the RO contacted a School Certifying Official (SCO) at the University of Phoenix-Online in October 2007. Indeed, the October 2007 VA Form 119, Report of Contact, notes that the SCO confirmed at that time that the veteran's last dates of attendance at the institution were from September 30, 2004 to October 28, 2004. The October 2007 VA Form 119 also notes that the SCO explained that the veteran did enroll in two subsequent terms (from November 11, 2004 to December 16, 2004 and from December 16, 2004 to January 27, 2005) but never attended either of these classes. The veteran's claim was readjudicated in October 2007. Nonetheless, in the August 2007 Remand, the Board considered the discrepancies found in the evidence of record together with the veteran's contention that the school was incorrect in its assertion that her coursework had ended October 28, 2004 and concluded that an attempt to obtain official documention from the school in the form of an official transcript or other certification was warranted. However, it does not appear that the RO has attempted to obtain an official transcript or other certification from the University of Phoenix that lists the specific dates of completed coursework, as instructed by the August 2007 Board remand. The October 2007 VA Form 119 does not sufficiently comply with the directives of the remand. Although not reflected in the record, the Board recognizes that the University of Phoenix-Online may not have the authority to provide such official documentation without the veteran's prior consent. Therefore, the Board finds that the RO should send correspondence to the veteran asking her to provide an official transcript or other certification from the University of Phoenix-Online or otherwise provide proper consent and authorization to the institution so that it may send an official transcript or other certification on behalf of the veteran to VA in support of her appeal. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Please send correspondence to the veteran asking her to provide an official transcript or other certification from the University of Phoenix-Online herself or otherwise provide proper authorization to the institution so that it may send an official transcript or other certification for the veteran to VA. Any documentation should reflect the specific dates of completed coursework and attendance for the veteran at the University of Phoenix- Online from 2004 to the present. The veteran should also be asked to submit any evidence in her possession that pertains to her claim in said correspondence. 2. After any additional notification and/or development that the RO deems necessary is undertaken, the veteran's claim should be readjudicated. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the veteran should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case that contains notice of all relevant actions taken, including a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered pertinent to the issue. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response by the veteran. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The purpose of this remand is to ensure due process. The Board does not intimate a decision, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ John E. Ormond, Jr. Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).