Citation Nr: 21023624 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 18-32 907 DATE: April 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) benefits, other than employment services, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 2009 to April 2011, to include service in Iraq. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2018 determination issued by the VR&E Division of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Los Angeles, California. This case was previously before the Board in August 2019, 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 delay, additional development is required in order to comply with the previous remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).  Entitlement to VR&E benefits, other than employment services, is remanded. In the August 2019 remand, the Board directed, in effect, that the AOJ arrange for the Veteran to be afforded vocational rehabilitation and functional capacity evaluations for purposes of ascertaining (a) the current limitations caused by his disabilities and their effect on his ability to obtain or maintain employment consistent with his abilities, aptitude, and interests, and (b) whether the Veteran was employable in a suitable occupation absent additional education. The remand specifically directed that an evaluation was to be performed by a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Although the Veteran underwent a functional capacity evaluation in July 2020, the evaluation was not provided by a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Nor was a separate evaluation done by a vocational rehabilitation counselor that addressed the specific matters identified by the Board. In addition, the Veteran was subsequently awarded service connected for an additional disability; namely, gastroesophageal reflux disease. See March 2021 rating decision. In light of the foregoing, this matter must be remanded to the AOJ for substantial compliance with the Board’s August 2019 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Court or the Board confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with remand orders). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange for the Veteran to be afforded vocational rehabilitation and functional capacity evaluations that ascertain the current limitations caused by his disabilities and their effect on his ability to obtain or maintain employment consistent with his abilities, aptitude, and interests. It is noted that the Veteran is service-connected for posttraumatic stress disorder, rated as 50 percent disabling; right lower extremity radiculopathy, rated as 20 percent disabling; lumbosacral strain, rated as 20 percent disabling; right hip osteoarthritis, rated as 10 percent disabling; gastroesophageal reflux disease, rated as 10 percent disabling; right knee osteoarthritis, rated as 10 percent disabling; and inguinal hernia, right testicular epididymal cyst, surgical scar, right upper thigh neuralgia, right though limitation of flexion, and right thigh impairment, each rated as noncompensable. The functional capacity evaluation should include an evaluation by an appropriate vocational rehabilitation counselor to determine whether the Veteran is employable in a suitable occupation absent additional education. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 21.47(a)(3). The evaluation(s) should specifically address whether the Veteran’s aptitudes and abilities are consistent with his proposed vocational goal. A thorough rationale for all opinions afforded, considering all of the evidence of record, would be of significant assistance to the Board. 2. Ensure the entire paper VR&E folder has been scanned and associated with the electronic claims file. 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 paragraph, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a statement in support   of claim. 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.