Citation Nr: 19166706
Decision Date: 08/28/19	Archive Date: 08/27/19

DOCKET NO. 12-04 874A
DATE: August 28, 2019

REMANDED

1. Whether the Veteran’s vocational rehabilitation benefits under the provisions of Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, were properly interrupted is remanded.

2. Whether the discontinuance of vocational rehabilitation benefits was proper is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active military service from June 1979 to January 1985.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2011 administrative decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) in Louisville, Kentucky.  In May 2016, the Veteran testified at a hearing conducted before the undersigned.  A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file.

The Board notes the Veteran has perfected a number of other appeals that have been assigned a separate docket number.  These other appeals will be the subject of a separate Board decision at the appropriate time.

The Board most recently considered the Veteran’s appeal in July 2018, at which time a decision was issued upholding the discontinuance of the Veteran’s vocational rehabilitation benefits.  The Veteran then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) which, in March 2019, issued an order granting a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion), vacating the July 2018 Board decision and remanding the appeal for further consideration.  

Specifically, the parties to the Joint Motion agreed that the Board’s decision upholding a May 2011 decision discontinuing the Veteran’s vocational rehabilitation benefits erred by not providing adequate reasons or bases for its determinations that considered the impact of the evidence of record that reflected that the Veteran had an unadjudicated appeal with respect to an April 2011 decision which interrupted his vocational rehabilitation benefits.  In May 2011, the Veteran submitted correspondence indicating his desire to “fil[e] an appeal” with respect to “the interruption of [his] vocational rehabilitation program.”

The proper course of action when a timely notice of disagreement has been filed is to remand the matter to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction.  Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999).  Appropriate action, including issuance of a statement of the case is now necessary with regard to this issue.  38 C.F.R. § 19.26. The issue of discontinuance will be deferred.

 

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Issue a statement of the case with respect to the issue of the propriety of the April 2011 interruption of the Veteran’s vocational rehabilitation benefits.  All appropriate appellate procedures should then be followed.

 

 

M. C. GRAHAM

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Christopher Murray, 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.