Citation Nr: 21001309 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 09-11 134 DATE: January 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to Vocational Rehabilitation and Education (VR&E) services pursuant to Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1985 to July 2000. His decorations include the Southwest Asia Service Medal. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2009 decision issued by the VR&E division of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. This case was most recently before the Board in October 2019, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Entitlement to VR&E services pursuant to Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, is remanded. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim and to afford him every possible consideration. The purpose of VA’s VR&E program is to provide for services and assistance necessary to enable veterans with service-connected disabilities to achieve independence in daily living and, to the extent possible, to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable employment. 38 U.S.C. § 3101; 38 C.F.R. § 21.70. The Veteran’s interests and capabilities must be considered when determining “suitable employment.” See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 21.50(c). The Veteran seeks additional VR&E services in the form of a program of education to pursue a Bachelor of Science degree in social work. See January 2009 VA Form 28-1902w (Rehabilitation Needs Inventory (RNI)). He has contended that his service-connected disabilities cause his daily routine job duties to be very excruciating, sometimes leading to delays in work performance. See August 2009 correspondence. Unfortunately, the Board is presently unable to make an informed decision regarding the issue on appeal. Specifically, it appears that the entirety of the Veteran’s VR&E file may not have been associated with the record currently before the Board. For example, an August 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and September 2020 Statement in Support of Claim indicates that the Veteran met with a vocational rehabilitation counselor in March 2020 for an evaluation. Although the SSOC contains a summary of that evaluation, the underlying report, if there is one, is not of record. On remand, the AOJ should clarify whether such a report was prepared and, if so, it should be obtained and associated with the Veteran’s electronic claims file, along with the remainder of his VR&E file, if any. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.9, 21.33(c). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure the Veteran’s entire VR&E folder has been scanned and associated with the electronic claims file. Particular attention should be paid to obtaining and scanning a copy of the report of any vocational rehabilitation evaluation undertaken in March 2020, as referenced in the August 2020 SSOC. If no such report exists, that fact should be noted for the record. 2. If, as a result of the foregoing action, additional records are associated with the electronic claims file that were not considered and/or discussed in the August 2020 SSOC, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence and, if the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued another SSOC and afforded an appropriate period of time for response. If, on the other hand, no additional records exist that had not already been associated with the electronic claims file, or if the additional records added to the electronic claims file were already considered and properly discussed in the August 2020 SSOC, the case may be returned to the Board without further adjudicatory action. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31(c). DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Kettler, 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.