Citation Nr: 18147098 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 13-22 204 DATE: November 5, 2018 ORDER As the character of the appellant’s discharge from his period of active service constitutes a bar to eligibility for the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP), the appeal is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The appellant was discharged from active duty service under other than honorable conditions. 2. A June 2014 Administrative Decision indicates that the appellant’s period of service is considered dishonorable for VA purposes and his violations of misconduct were considered willful and persistent. 3. The evidence does not show that the appellant was insane at the time of the misconduct. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant is not eligible for participation in the VRAP due to the character of his discharge. 38 U.S.C. § 5303; VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-56, 125 Stat. 713, § 211(e)(1)(B) (Nov. 21, 2011); 38 C.F.R. § 3.12. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The appellant served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1980 to November 1981. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2012 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. In July 2018, the appellant appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. Entitlement to educational benefits under the VRAP. By way of background, the VRAP was a component of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011. See Pub. L. No. 112-56, § 211, 125 Stat. 712 -715 (2011). The VRAP directed VA, in cooperation with the Department of Labor (DOL), to pay for up to 12 months of retraining assistance in a “high demand” occupation for unemployed eligible veterans between the ages of 35 and 60 as determined by DOL and VA. Pursuant to Pub. L. No. 112-56, 125 Stat. 713, § 211(k), authority to make payments under VRAP terminated on March 31, 2014. Under the VRAP, an eligible veteran must: (1) be at least 35 but not more than 60 years old; (2) be unemployed; (3) have last been discharged under other than dishonorable conditions; (4) not be eligible for any other VA education benefit programs; (5) not be in receipt of VA compensation due to unemployability; and (6) not be, or have been in the last 180 days, enrolled in a Federal or state job training program. See Pub. L. No. 112-56, 125 Stat. 713, § 211(e)(1). Here, the appellant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged from service “under other than honorable conditions” and the narrative reason for his separation is listed as “Administrative discharge, conduct triable by court-martial.” Although the appellant asserted in his December 2012 Notice of Disagreement and January 2013 statement that his discharge was not “dishonorable,” an Administrative Decision that was issued by the RO in June 2014 indicates that the appellant’s period of service is considered dishonorable for VA purposes. In that decision, the RO reported that the appellant’s violations of misconduct were considered willful and persistent under 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d)(4) and the matter of the appellant’s sanity was not an issue. Notably, under VA regulations, a discharge or release because of willful and persistent misconduct is considered to have been issued under dishonorable conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 3.12 (d)(4). Additionally, a discharge or release from service for willful and persistent misconduct, as specified in 38 C.F.R § 3.12, is a bar to benefits unless it is found that the person was insane at the time of committing the offense causing such discharge or release. See 38 U.S.C. § 5303(b). Under VA regulation, an insane person is one who, while not mentally defective or constitutionally psychopathic, except when a psychosis has been engrafted upon such basic condition, exhibits, due to disease, a more or less prolonged deviation from his normal method of behavior; or who interferes with the peace of society; or who has so departed (become antisocial) from the accepted standards of the community to which by birth and education he belongs as to lack the adaptability to make further adjustment to the social customs of the community in which he resides. 38 C.F.R. § 3.354(a); see Zang v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 246, 253 (1995). Although insanity need not be causally connected to the misconduct that led to the discharge, it must be concurrent with that misconduct and requires competent medical evidence to establish a diagnosis. See Beck v. West, 13 Vet. App. 535, 539 (2000); Zang, 8 Vet. App. at 254-55; 38 C.F.R. § 3.354(a). Here, the evidence does not show or suggest that the appellant was insane at the time of the offenses leading to his discharge. Thus, in light of the Board’s finding that the appellant was discharged under dishonorable conditions, the Board also finds that the criteria for eligibility for the VRAP are not met. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. C. Wilson, Counsel