Citation Nr: 21006433 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 19-00 262 DATE: February 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) benefits, other than employment services, to include pursuit of a Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) or comparable degree, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from November 2003 to November 2007. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 determination by the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Division of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Los Angeles, California. The issue on appeal was previously before the Board in November 2019 and June 2020, 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. 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. Entitlement to VR&E benefits, other than employment services, to include pursuit of a M.B.A. or comparable degree, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. chapter 31, is remanded. As noted above, this case was last remanded by the Board in June 2020. In the June 2020 remand, the Board directed the AOJ to, in pertinent part, afford the Veteran a new assessment of whether an M.B.A. was warranted based upon his service-connected disabilities, and his abilities, aptitudes, and interests considering the current labor market in the Veteran’s career goal, as agreed upon in the November 2014 IWRP. Upon review of the file, there is no evidence that the AOJ afforded the Veteran a new vocational rehabilitation evaluation provided by a vocational rehabilitation counselor (VRC). Indeed, in the October 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), the AOJ stated that a new evaluation would be completed when a new counselor was assigned. However, a new assessment was not obtained prior to returning the case to the Board. As such, there has not been substantial compliance with the prior Board remand directives and additional development is necessary. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 271 (1998). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that all documents related to the Veteran’s claim for VR&E benefits have been scanned and associated with the electronic claims file. 2. Arrange for the Veteran to be afforded a vocational rehabilitation evaluation that ascertains the current limitations caused by his service-connected disabilities and their effect on his ability to perform in both his current occupational field and the occupational fields as desired by the Veteran, to be specifically defined by the Veteran. If possible, the VRC providing this evaluation should be a VRC that has not previously evaluated the Veteran, nor has afforded an opinion as to the feasibility and employability of the Veteran. It is noted that the Veteran is service connected for schizoaffective disorder, rated as 30 percent disabling; lumbar spine musculoligamentous strain/sprain, rated as 10 percent disabling; and a right ring finger scar, rated as noncompensable. The evaluation should include: (a.) Any clinically indicated medical examinations and testing for the service-connected disabilities; and (b.) Evaluation by an appropriate vocational rehabilitation counselor to determine: 1. Whether the achievement of the employment goal as expressed by the Veteran is reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53; and 2. Whether the Veteran's requested change of the vocational rehabilitation education and employment goal, specifically whether obtaining an M.B.A., is warranted in accord with 38 C.F.R. § 21.94. The evaluation should specifically address whether the Veteran’s aptitudes and abilities are consistent with both his current education and transferrable skills and the degree requirements and skills of his proposed career and educational changes. The need for an advanced degree should be specifically discussed, considering the evidence of record, to include the Veteran’s lay statements and objective evidence, his employability relative to non-disabled individuals, and the current status of the labor market in the Veteran’s chosen field. A thorough rationale for all opinions afforded, considering all of the evidence of record, would be of significant assistance to the Board. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. 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.