Citation Nr: 18157308
Decision Date: 12/12/18	Archive Date: 12/12/18

DOCKET NO. 15-23 034A
DATE:	December 12, 2018
REMANDED
The issue of whether the denial of entitlement to Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits was valid is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from August 2007 to October 2011.
This appeal stems from a January 2015 determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Jurisdiction is currently with the RO in St. Petersburg, Florida.
In December 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. 
The issue of whether the denial of entitlement to Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits was valid is remanded.
The Veteran has filed a claim for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which the RO denied in January 2015. The RO determined that the Veteran was not entitled to such benefits based upon his character of discharge, which is listed as “under honorable conditions (general)” on his DD-214. However, the Veteran has stated that he reenlisted while stationed in Iraq between October 2009 and September 2010. Thus, he contends that he completed his first term of service under honorable conditions and is entitled to Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits based upon his first enlistment. The Board notes that the reenlistment documents have not been associated with the claims file and the RO has not made a formal finding that these records are unavailable. Thus, a remand is necessary to attempt to obtain the Veteran’s reenlistment records. 
During his hearing, the undersigned advised the Veteran to request an upgrade of his discharge from the Army. He is encouraged to provide a detailed description of his reason for the upgrade to the appropriate Army department and submit any determinations to the Board.  
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Contact all appropriate repositories of records and attempt to obtain copies of any available reenlistment documents.
All actions to obtain the records should be documented. If the records cannot be located or do not exist, a memorandum of unavailability should be associated with the file, and the Veteran should be notified and given an opportunity to provide them.
 
 H. M. WALKER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Erin J. Trojanowski, Associate Counsel