Citation Nr: 18157518 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 15-42 467 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses for daily commuting in pursuit of a vocational rehabilitation goal is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In pursuit of a vocational rehabilitation goal, the Veteran attended a school that was a one-way distance of approximately 24 miles from his home. 2. Reimbursement of travel expenses is not warranted for normal daily commutes of 50 miles or less one-way. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for reimbursement of travel expenses for daily commuting in pursuit of a vocational rehabilitation goal have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 111, 3104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 21.370. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran contends he is entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses related to his daily commute from his home to the school at which he was pursuing a vocational rehabilitation goal, a distance of approximately 24 miles each way. He asserts that due to his physical disabilities and the remote location of his home, overall commuting time, as opposed to distance, is a more appropriate metric on which to base a consideration of reimbursement of travel expenses. The Secretary may pay the actual necessary expense of travel (including lodging and subsistence), or in lieu thereof an allowance based upon mileage traveled, of any person to or from a Department facility or other place in connection with vocation rehabilitation. 38 U.S.C. § 111(a). In pertinent part, VA regulations authorize a veteran to travel at government expense within the regional territory of the VA field station of jurisdiction when: (1) VA determines that the travel is necessary in the discharge of the government’s obligation to the veteran; and (2) The veteran is instructed to travel: (i) to report to the chosen school or training facility for the purpose of starting training; (ii) To return to his or her home from the training or rehabilitation facility when: (A) Services are not available for a period of 30 days or more (including summer vacation periods), and (B) Travel from his or her home to the training or rehabilitation facility was at government expense; (iii) To return to the training or rehabilitation facility from his or her home, when: (A) The purpose of the travel is to continue the rehabilitation program, and (B) Travel from the training or rehabilitation facility to the veteran’s home was at government expense; (iv) To return to his or her home from the place of training following rehabilitation to the point of employability, when suitable employment is not available; or (v) To return from the place of training to the veteran’s prior location, when VA could have approved travel to the place of training at government expense, but did not issue the necessary travel authorization. 38 C.F.R. § 21.370(b). Intraregional travel only includes travel to and from the veteran’s residence and a training or employment location if that location is outside routine commuting distance in the geographic area. A normal daily commute is defined as 50 miles one-way. In other words, a veteran traveling to and from a training or employment location within the routine commuting distance of 50 miles one-way would not be eligible for reimbursement of travel expenses. See M28R, Part V, Section B, Chapter 6.05. In the instant case, the Veteran’s travel to and from his school, a distance of approximately 24 miles each way, clearly falls within the definition of a “normal daily commute” discussed above. Furthermore, while the Veteran asserts that overall commute time is a more accurate metric on which to consider travel reimbursement, reimbursement based on commuting time, as opposed to distance, is not authorized by the applicable statutes or regulations. As a final note, the Board has considered the exceptions contained in 38 C.F.R. § 21.154, pertaining to special transportation assistance. However, there is no competent evidence that the Veteran’s disabilities have the effect of increasing the transportation expenses above those that would be incurred by a person not so disabled. In this regard, the evidence does not demonstrate that the distance of Veteran’s daily commute is increased due to his disabilities above that by a person not disabled who lived at the same location. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt rule; however, based on the evidence discussed above, the rule is not applicable in this case. Therefore, reimbursement of travel expenses related to the Veteran’s daily commute to and from his school in pursuit of a vocational rehabilitation goal is not warranted, and the appeal must be denied. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher Murray, Counsel