Citation Nr: 18142682 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 14-30 159 DATE: October 16, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to education benefits under the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant’s dates of active duty service are contested in this claim. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia, which denied entitlement to VRAP benefits based on a determination that the appellant did not have the necessary qualifying service to be recognized as a veteran. This matter was previously before the Board in June 2015, at which time it was remanded to schedule a Board hearing. In July 2016, the appellant testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims folder. 1. Entitlement to education benefits under the VRAP is remanded. The Veteran seeks to establish eligibility to benefits under the VRAP, which is a component of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. See Pub. L. No. 112-56, § 211, 125 Stat. 713 (Nov. 21, 2011); see also 38 U.S.C. § 4100 (2012). The VRAP offers up to 12 months of training assistance to unemployed Veterans. Participants may pursue an approved program of education offered by a community college or technical school that leads to an associate degree or a certificate (or other similar evidence of the completion of the program of education or training) and is designed to provide training for a high-demand occupation. See id. Critically, to participate in the VRAP, an eligible person must be a veteran who was last discharged from the Armed Forces under conditions other than dishonorable. Id. (emphasis added). Here, the appellant seeks recognition as a veteran for purposes of entitlement to education benefits under the VRAP. He asserts that he served over 90 days on active duty from June 13, 1980, to May 8, 1981, and attended basic training at Fort Knox and at the Marion Military Institute (MMI). See June 2014 Statement in Support of Claim; August 2014 VA Form 9. The Board notes that the evidence shows that he participated in an Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) program in 1980 and 1981, but the claims folder does not contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that identifies a specific period of active service and the appellant did not provide a DD Form 214 upon VA’s request in July 2013. The RO denied entitlement to VRAP benefits based on a determination that although the Veteran received an ROTC scholarship, he did not serve on active duty in the Armed Forces. See July 2014 Statement of the Case. The basis of that denial was correspondence from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in which it was reported that a DD Form 214 was not issued because the appellant had no active service or had less than 90 consecutive days of active duty for training. See April 2013 NPRC Correspondence. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary for the Agency of Original Jurisdiction to seek verification of the appellant’s service from the Department of the Army, instead of the NPRC. Absent evidence of a statutorily delegated duty, the plain meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(c) requires verification of service from the relevant service department, which would be the Department of the Army, as opposed to the NPRC. See Tagupa v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 95, 101-02 (2014). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request that the Department of the Army verify the appellant’s alleged qualifying service in 1980 and 1981. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. C. Wilson, Counsel