Citation Nr: 19154841 Decision Date: 07/16/19 Archive Date: 07/16/19 DOCKET NO. 18-15 938 DATE: July 16, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to reimbursement for the cost of certification test taken prior to November 13, 2016, under the Licensing and Certification (LAC) program is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran took certification tests in January 2012, April 2012, December 2012, May 2013, August 2013, October 2014, and May 2015, respectively. 2. On November 13, 2017, the Veteran submitted an application for reimbursement for the cost of such certification tests. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to reimbursement for the cost of certification tests taken prior to November 13, 2016, under the LAC program have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 3689 (20120; 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.1029 (b), 21.4131(a)(2) (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1982 to December 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2017 administrative decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. 1. Entitlement to reimbursement for the cost of certification tests taken prior to November 13, 2016, under the LAC Program The Veteran seeks reimbursement for the cost of certification test taken prior to November 13, 2016, under the LAC Program. VA will award educational assistance for the cost of a licensing or certification test only when the individual takes such test: (i) while the test is approved under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 36; (ii) while the individual is eligible for educational assistance under subpart G; and (iii) no more than one year before the date VA receives a claim for reimbursement of the cost of the test. 38 C.F.R. § 21.4131(a)(2). The criteria are conjunctive, meaning that the individual must satisfy all of the criteria to be entitled to an award of educational assistance for the cost of a licensing or certification test. See Melson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 334 (1991) (use of the conjunctive “and” in a statutory provision meant that all of the conditions listed in the provision must be met); compare Johnson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 95 (1994) (holding instead that only one disjunctive “or” requirement must be met in order for an increased rating to be assigned). The Veteran submitted a claim for reimbursement with VA on November 13, 2017, for certification tests, i.e., School Leadership Licensure Assessments, taken in January 2012, April 2012, December 2012, May 2013, August 2013, October 2014, and May 2015, respectively. As indicated, VA will award educational assistance for the cost of a licensing or certification test only when the individual takes such test, in relevant part, no more than one year before the date VA receives a claim for reimbursement of the cost of the test. Therefore, under the applicable regulation, the Veteran is not, as a matter of law, entitled to receive educational assistance for the cost of a licensing or certification test prior to November 13, 2016, i.e., one year before the date VA receives a claim for reimbursement. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements that he initially contacted a representative at the RO in Muskogee, Oklahoma and that the representative was unclear or did not provide him the right information. Although the Veteran presents a sympathetic argument, the Board is bound to follow VA’s statutes and regulations and, under those statutes and regulations, has no authority to grant benefits on an equitable basis. See Owings v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 17, 23 (1995) (stating that even where VA misinforms a veteran regarding eligibility for benefits, the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot be used to grant monetary benefits not authorized by statute), aff’d 86 F.3d 1178 (Fed.Cir.1996). The Board thus finds that entitlement to reimbursement for the cost of certification tests taken prior to November 13, 2016, under the LAC Program, is denied as a matter of law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). Accordingly, the appeal is denied. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Kalolwala, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.