Citation Nr: 21010928 Decision Date: 02/26/21 Archive Date: 02/26/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 715 DATE: February 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) services, to include other than employment services, to include additional training, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. chapter 31, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Navy from July 1979 to July 1983. The Veteran had additional active duty service with the United States Navy from November 1986 to January 1992. The Veteran is a Gulf War Era Veteran who also served during Peacetime. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 letter of determination issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in January 2018. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. This case was previously before the Board in July 2018. In July 2018, the issue of entitlement to VR&E services was remanded to obtain a new VR&E evaluation. The case has been returned to the Board for appellate consideration. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As discussed below, the Board unfortunately finds that another remand is necessary as the Veteran is entitled to substantial compliance with Board remand directives. Id. As outlined above, in the July 2018 Board remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) was directed to obtain a new VR&E evaluation for the Veteran, to determine whether VR&E services were feasible and appropriate. A review of the file does not demonstrate that this evaluation was obtained. As such, upon remand, the Veteran should receive a new VR&E examination to determine the feasibility and appropriateness of the Veteran’s participation in VR&E services. Id. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his service-connected disabilities. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorizations, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Following completion of the above, arrange for the Veteran to be afforded a vocational rehabilitation evaluation that ascertains the current limitations caused by his service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities and their effect on his ability to perform in any occupation consistent with his abilities, skills, and interests. This assessment, if possible, should be performed by a vocational rehabilitation counselor who has neither evaluated the Veteran nor opined as to the issue on appeal. The evaluation should include: (a.) Any clinically indicated medical examinations and testing for service-connected and/or nonservice-connected disabilities; and (b.) Evaluation by an appropriate vocational rehabilitation counselor to determine: 1. Whether the achievement of the Veteran's vocational goal, as stated by the Veteran, is reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53, including consideration of the Veteran's ability to complete the educational requirements for these fields, to include text and clinical education, licensure requirements, and the work in the regular and expected work environment, itself; and 2. Whether the Veteran's requested vocational rehabilitation employment goal, as communicated by the Veteran, is warranted in accord with 38 C.F.R. § 21.94. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner is requested to specifically consider the Veteran's VA examinations, and the finding of the examiners of impacts of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his ability to performance of work-related activities. The examiner is also requested to address any records of the Social Security Administration that found the Veteran capable of work. A thorough rationale for all opinions afforded, considering all of the evidence of record, to include the Veteran's lay statements, would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Cynthia M. Bruce Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. E. Trotter, 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.