Citation Nr: 21015637 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 11-02 891A DATE: March 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) services pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31, to include reimbursement for costs of medical school training, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service in the United States Marine Corps from June 1997 to November 1997 and in the United States Navy from February 1998 to September 2002. The Veteran is a Persian Gulf War Era Veteran. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2010 letter of determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was previously before the Board in November 2011 and May 2020. In November 2011, the claim was remanded to obtain outstanding treatment records, to have the Veteran undergo needed VA examinations, and to readjudicate this VR&E claim after completing remand development concerning other claims for higher disability ratings for a right shoulder disability and psychiatric disability. In May 2020, the Board remanded the case to obtain outstanding treatment records; obtain medical examinations for service-connected disabilities, as necessary; and obtain a new evaluation by a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC). The case since has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. Although the Board sincerely regrets the delay that this will cause, the Board finds that another remand is necessary as the Veteran is entitled to substantial compliance with the May 2020 Board remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As outlined above, in the May 2020 remand, the Board directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction to obtain outstanding medical records; obtain any outstanding evidence from the Veteran concerning the success, or lack thereof, regarding attempts to obtain and retain employment in the fields appropriate for his degree at the time of his initial September 2010 denial of vocational rehabilitation services, notably as a personal trainer and with his education and skills at that time; and to obtain and provide VR&E evaluation that ascertains the current limitations caused by his service-connected disabilities and their effect on his ability to perform in his occupational field at the time of the September 2010 denial and his current occupational field, as consistent with his abilities, skills, and interests. While the AOJ made attempts to obtain the information regarding medical treatment and evidence concerning his ability to obtain and retain employment as a personal trainer in September 2010, there is no evidence that either medical evaluations, or a new VR&E evaluation, were obtained, nor is there evidence that either was scheduled. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271; see also Correspondence, dated September 2020, August 2020. In light of the above, this case should be remanded to the AOJ for compliance with the May 2020 Board directives. Id. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. 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 since September 2009. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorizations, obtain and associate these additional records with the claims file so that they, too, may be considered. This includes obtaining any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Ask the Veteran to submit any evidence in his possession regarding attempts to obtain and retain employment in the fields appropriate for his degree at the time of his initial September 2010 denial of vocational rehabilitation services, notably as a personal trainer and with his education and skills at that time. He should specifically be requested to submit evidence that any such attempts were unsuccessful. He should also specifically be requested to submit any evidence that his employment in these fields was adversely impacted by his service-connected disabilities. All attempts to communicate with the Veteran should be clearly documented in the file, along with any negative responses. 3. Following completion of the above development, 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 his occupational field at the time of the September 2010 denial and his current occupational field, as consistent with his abilities, skills, and interests. Any training or education obtained by him after September 2010 may not be considered in this opinion. It is noted that the Veteran is service connected for major depressive disorder, rated as 30-percent disabling, and right shoulder supraspinatus tear, rated as 10-percent disabling. The evaluation should include: (a.) Any clinically indicated medical examinations and testing for these service-connected disabilities; and (b.) Evaluation by an appropriate VRC to determine: 1. Whether the achievement of employability consistent with the interests, aptitude, and abilities, consistent with education and career field of a physical trainer, was reasonably feasible in September 2010, consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 21.53; and 2. Whether the Veteran's requested change of the vocational rehabilitation employment goal to that of a physician, or other goal specified by the Veteran at the time of the September 2010 denial, was warranted. 3. Whether the Veteran's current employment as a physician continues to be reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53; and 4. Whether any requested change of the vocational rehabilitation employment goal by the Veteran is warranted. The examiner should specifically address lay statements from the Veteran, the June 2013 VA opinion indicating that the Veteran's right shoulder disability allowed him to still perform light work, but also the September 2010 private opinion stating that he would have limited ability to perform activities requiring considerable use of his arms. 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. ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR. 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.