Citation Nr: 21067091 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-44 764 DATE: November 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 1, 2017 for the award of Special Restorative Training (SRT) benefits is denied. FINDING OF FACT A VA vocational rehabilitation counselor determined that the approval date for the appellant's SRT benefits is January 1, 2017. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than January 1, 2017, for the award of SRT benefits have not been met. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3331. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1985 to February 1988, December 1988 to September 1992, December 1993 to February 1994, January 1996 to May 2001, December 2005 to June 2007, and from December 2009 to November 2013. The appellant is the Veteran's son. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2017 determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. In July 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 1, 2017 for the award of SRT benefits is denied. The appellant asserts that rather than the currently assigned effective date of January 1, 2017, SRT benefits should have been awarded effective July 3, 2016, the date the appellant began school. Specifically, the appellant argues that the approval date was arbitrarily chosen after the RO delayed processing the appellant's application, which was submitted in June 2016. See, e.g., July 2021 Board Hearing Transcript. A dependent child that is eligible for Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA) may receive benefits under the SRT provision. SRT is available to overcome or lessen the effects of a physical or mental disability for the purpose of enabling an eligible person to pursue a program of education, special vocational program or other appropriate goal. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3300. When SRT has been requested, a counseling psychologist or vocational rehabilitation counselor will obtain all information necessary to determine the need for and feasibility of SRT. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3301(a). Next, the counselor will refer the case to the Vocational Rehabilitation Panel, who will consider multiple factors before preparing a written report of its findings and recommendations. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3301(a)-(b). Following review of the report and consultation with the panel, the counselor will determine the need for and feasibility of SRT. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3301(c). A favorable determination requires the counselor to prepare an individualized written plan for the applicant. Id. The commencing date of an authorization of SRT will be the date of entrance into the prescribed course or the date the counselor approved the course, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3331. In this case, VA received an application for DEA benefits on June 30, 2016. The application noted that school would commence on July 3, 2016. The application marked "no" in response to the question, "Are you seeking [SRT]?" On August 5, 2016, VA issued a Certificate of Eligibility which certified the appellant's entitlement for an approved program of education or training under DEA. On September 7, 2016, the AOJ received the appellant's enrollment certification from the school. In an October 6, 2016 letter, the AOJ informed the appellant that his chosen school was approved for SRT only, and that educational counseling was required to receive benefits. In a November 8, 2016 letter, the AOJ denied the appellant's claim under DEA because the appellant did not complete a Vocational Rehabilitation Plan as required in order to receive SRT. A counseling record reflects that the appellant attended orientation on January 5, 2017 for entitlement determination. Thereafter, a counselor completed a summary report of the case on February 14, 2017, which was presented to the Vocational Rehabilitation Panel. A Vocational Rehabilitation Plan dated April 13, 2017 awarded specialized vocational training plan effective January 1, 2017. In this case, although the appellant entered a prescribed course on July 3, 2016, the rehabilitation counselor did not approve the course until January 1, 2017. As this is the later of the two dates, the Board has no authority to grant an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R. § 21.3331. Although the record does not support the appellant's contention that the AOJ delayed the processing of the appellant's application, the Board is sympathetic to the appellant's claim and the circumstances of the events surrounding this appeal. However, the applicable laws and regulations as written preclude a grant of benefits. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 7104; see also Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416, 425 (1994). "No equities, no matter how compelling, can create a right to payment out of the United States Treasury that has not been provided for by Congress." Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 429, 432-33 (1992). Accordingly, the law is dispositive of the issue and the Board is bound by the laws and regulations governing this issue. Therefore, the appeal must be denied. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (finding that where application of the law to the facts is dispositive, the appeal must be terminated because there is no entitlement under the law to the benefit sought). A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Roya Bahrami, 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.