Citation Nr: 1007228	
Decision Date: 02/26/10    Archive Date: 03/05/10

DOCKET NO.  08-15 092	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, 
Oklahoma



THE ISSUE

Entitlement to educational assistance under Chapter 30, Title 
38, United States Code, for flight training courses taken in 
July 2007.  



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Tenner, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The claimant's period of active duty has not been verified.  
In February 2007, he applied for VA educational benefits 
while still on active duty in the U.S. Air Force.  

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) 
on appeal from a December 2007 decision rendered by the 
Muskogee, Oklahoma Regional Office (RO) of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA).  

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management 
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.  VA will notify the 
appellant if further action is required.


REMAND

The Board finds that additional development is warranted 
prior to issuing a decision for the matter on appeal.  In 
this respect, the Board finds that the claimant has not been 
sufficiently notified as to the basis of VA's denial of the 
claim.  

In March 2007, the claimant received a notice that he was 
entitled to benefits for an approved program of education or 
training under the Montgomery GI Bill.  

In August 2007, the RO received the claimant's application 
for License and Certification (LAC) testing fee reimbursement 
for Lear Jet 35 type rating taken at CAE Simuflite.  
Accompanying the application was a $2,000.00 invoice from CAE 
Simuflite for a training course described as "C-21A 
Type/ATP."  He also submitted evidence documenting fees paid 
for pilot certification tests.  

In December 2007 and March 2008, the RO reimbursed the 
Veteran for the license and certification fees.  The 
reimbursements totaled $600.00.  

In the December 2007 decision on appeal, the RO denied 
reimbursement for the $2,000.00 flight training courses 
because it did not qualify for LAC reimbursement for Lear Jet 
35 Type Rating and or Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) taken at 
CAE Simuflite.  

In April 2008, and following receipt of the claimant's Notice 
of Disagreement, the RO issued a Statement of the Case.  In 
the Statement of the Case, the RO cited to regulations 
pertaining to the approval of licensing and certification 
tests.  It is undisputed, however, that the $2,000.00 invoice 
submitted by the claimant was not for a licensing and 
certification test.  Rather, the invoice pertained to the 
flight training course he took in order to prepare and 
ultimately pass the certification test.  Regulations 
pertaining to the payment of educational benefits for flight 
training courses are found in 38 C.F.R., Part 21.  (See, for 
example, 38 C.F.R. § 21.4263(e) governing the payment of 
flight training courses that are not part of a degree 
program.)  

The Statement of the Case must be complete enough to allow 
the claimant to present written or oral arguments before the 
Board.  38 C.F.R. § 19.29(a).  It must contain both a summary 
of the evidenc, and a summary of the applicable laws and 
regulations, to include a discussion of how the laws and 
regulations impact the determination.  38 C.F.R. § 19.29(b).  

Here, the Board finds that the Statement of the Case supplied 
to the claimant did not comply with the governing regulation, 
and more importantly, the Board cannot determine whether or 
not the claimant was prejudiced by the error.  Accordingly, 
the Board finds that the matter must be remanded in order to 
afford proper notification to the claimant.  The claimant, in 
turn, should be afforded a sufficient period of time in which 
to respond.  

Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to the RO for the 
following action:

1.  The RO should contact the appropriate 
service department and verify the 
claimant's period of active duty service.  

2.  Thereafter, the RO should re-examine 
the claim of entitlement to educational 
assistance under Chapter 30, Title 38, 
United States Code, for flight training 
courses taken in July 2007.  If no 
additional development is required, 
including any required notice prescribed 
by current regulations and caselaw, the RO 
should prepare an SOC in accordance with 
38 C.F.R. § 19.29, unless the matter is 
resolved by granting the benefit sought, 
or by the claimant's withdrawal of the 
NOD.

3.  The claimant and his representative, 
if any, should then be afforded the 
opportunity to respond, after which the 
case should be returned to the Board, if 
in order, for further appellate review.

The appellant 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. 2009).



_________________________________________________
JESSICA J. WILLS
Acting 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) (2009).