Citation Nr: 21015352 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-27 617A DATE: March 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) services, to include other than employment services, to include continued further training in pursuit of the career goal of helicopter flight instructor, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. chapter 31, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service in the United States Army from February 1968 to March 1970. The Veteran is a Vietnam Era Veteran. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is from a March 2015 letter of determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in January 2021. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the electronic claims file. *** The Veteran claims entitlement to VR&E services, to include training in pursuit of a career goal of a helicopter flight instructor. The Board finds that, unfortunately, further development is necessary prior to adjudicating this claim. The Veteran’s goal of a helicopter flight instructor was a goal agreed upon by the Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) in a February 2011 Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan (IWRP). The Veteran took a number of classes in pursuit of this goal, obtaining a passing grade point average. See Academic Transcripts, dated November 2013, January 2012. The Veteran pursued additional flight training in pursuit of his goal as a helicopter flight instructor. In a letter, dated June 2014, the VR&E office declined to pay for further flight hours for training, noting that the Veteran had exceeded the maximum flight hours afforded by VA. In the March 2015 decision on appeal, however, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) acknowledged that there was no cap on flight hours for the Veteran but went on to state that the goal stated on the IWRP was not feasible. The VRC supported the opinion of lack of feasibility in the March 2015 letter by asserting that the owner of the flight school indicated that the goal of obtaining this career goal was not a realistic objective. The VRC went on to state that this opinion was supported by the program Department Chair. The VRC, however, did not consider all of the evidence of record. Specifically, the VRC did not address the letter from a flight instructor in support of the Veteran’s ability to perform this skill. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); see also Communication, dated April 2015. The Veteran’s grade point average, and success in obtaining his degree was also not considered in determining feasibility. Moreover, while the flight instructor did demonstrate concern regarding whether it was a realistic goal for the Veteran to become a flight instructor, the instructor did not, in his documented communication, state that it was not a realistic goal for the Veteran; rather, the owner stated that it would not be likely if the cap were imposed. The cap, however, as outlined above, is not applicable; and this statement is not consistent with stating that, without the cap, such a goal is not feasible. Finally, while the VRC reported communication with the owner of the flight school, the VRC has not obtained the educational records of the Veteran regarding this program, to include counseling and advising records so associated. Upon remand, the VRC should obtain these records. 38 C.F.R. § 21.33. This matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for the Veteran's service-connected and relevant nonservice-connected disabilities. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorizations, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Request that the Veteran provide a release for all educational records, to include advising and counseling records, regarding his education and training with his training to become a flight instructor. Upon receiving this release, the AOJ will obtain these records and associate them with the record. The Veteran shall also be informed that he may submit evidence, to include any relevant educational/training records, in support of his contention that such a career goal continues to be feasible. All attempts to obtain this information should be provided in writing and associated with the claims file, to include negative responses. 3. Following completion of the #1 and #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 as a helicopter flight instructor. 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 a neck scar, rated as 50 percent disabling; right sided muscle weakness, group VI, rated as 40 percent disabling; left upper extremity radiculopathy, rated as 40 percent disabling; right upper extremity radiculopathy, rated as 40 percent disabling; traumatic dislocation of C5-C6 vertebrae, rated as 30 percent disabling; left triceps atrophy, rated as 30 percent disabling; muscle weakness of the posterior neck, rated as 30 percent disabling; bladder malfunction with incontinence, rated as 20 percent disabling; muscle weakness of group XXII, rated as 10 percent disabling; scar of the anterior neck, rated as 10 percent disabling; scar of the left iliac crest, rated as 10 percent disabling; and scar of the left anterior hip, rated as 10 percent disabling. The evaluation should include: Any clinically indicated medical examinations and testing for service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities; and Evaluation by an appropriate vocational rehabilitation counselor to determine: (a.) Whether the achievement of the employment goal of a flight pilot, pursuant to the IWRP of February 2011, is reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53; and, if not, (b.) Whether a change of the vocational rehabilitation education and employment goal, as communicated by the Veteran, to include any required additional training, 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, and benefit of, additional flight hours 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, with specificity in supporting statements and evidence for all opinions afforded, considering all of the evidence of record, would be of significant assistance to the Board. Paul Sorisio 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.