Citation Nr: 21023749 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 14-32 074 DATE: April 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to additional vocational rehabilitation training benefits to obtain a law degree is remanded. Entitlement to retroactive induction into a rehabilitation program for completion of a Bachelor of Science degree in construction management is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1992 to August 1995. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2013 administrative decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. In January 2016, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. This case was previously before the Board in April 2018, 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. 1. Entitlement to additional vocational rehabilitation training benefits to obtain a law degree is remanded. 2. Entitlement to retroactive induction into a rehabilitation program for completion of a Bachelor of Science degree in construction management is remanded. The Veteran seeks additional vocational rehabilitation training benefits to obtain a law degree and retroactive induction into a rehabilitation program in regard to education undertaken to obtain a Bachelor of Science degree in construction management, which was awarded in December 2012. 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 claims and to afford him every possible consideration. First, the Board is concerned that the record is incomplete. A Counseling Record/Narrative Report dated November 13, 2012 appears to be missing additional pages. This report is critical to understanding whether the Veteran met the criteria for entitlement to vocational rehabilitation benefits, including whether the Veteran has an employment handicap/serious employment handicap, and whether or not his vocational goal was reasonably feasible or whether extended evaluation was needed. Therefore, a copy of the complete report, if available, must be obtained and associated with the electronic claims file. Additionally, since the evaluation in November 2012, the RO issued a rating decision granting a rating of 40 percent for the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar spine disability and a separate 10 percent rating for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity based largely on the findings of the June 2016 VA examination. See August 2016 rating decision. In short, it appears that the November 2012 evaluation was based on a picture of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities that has substantially changed in intervening years. In light of the changes that have occurred since the Veteran’s case was last reviewed by a vocational rehabilitation specialist, the Board finds that an additional vocational rehabilitation evaluation would be beneficial. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure the entire vocational rehabilitation folder has been scanned and associated with the electronic claims file. Particular attention should be paid to obtaining and scanning a complete copy of the report of any vocational rehabilitation evaluation undertaken in November 2012. If no such report exists, that fact should be noted for the record. All attempts to obtain the complete vocational rehabilitation employment folder, in particular the November 2012 evaluation, should be clearly documented and associated with the claims file. If the full folder, including the November 2012 evaluation, is unable to be obtained, the AOJ should contact the Veteran to determine if any of the evidence contained therein is in his possession. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, arrange for the Veteran to be afforded a vocational rehabilitation evaluation and functional capacity evaluation by a vocational rehabilitation counselor or counseling psychologist. It is noted that the Veteran is currently service connected for intervertebral disc syndrome and degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine, rated as 40 percent disabling; tinnitus, rated as 10 percent disabling; residuals of a left ankle sprain, rated as 10 percent disabling; radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, rated as 10 percent disabling; and scar of the volar surface of the right hand, rated as noncompensable. The evaluation should include: (a.) Any clinically indicated medical examinations and testing pertaining to the service-connected disabilities; and (b.) Evaluation by an appropriate vocational rehabilitation counselor or counseling psychologist to determine: 1. Whether the achievement of employment by the Veteran pursuant to her current education, work experience, and transferable skills are reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53; and 2. Whether the achievement of the vocational rehabilitation goal as expressed by the Veteran is reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53. 3. Whether the Veteran’s training and other rehabilitation services received during the retroactive period were reasonably needed to achieve the goals and objectives identified by the Veteran. The evaluation should specifically address whether the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities have worsened to the extent that their effects now preclude him from performing the duties of the occupation for which he was found rehabilitated or whether the occupation for which he previously was found rehabilitated under Chapter 31 is unsuitable on the basis of his specific employment handicap and capabilities. The evaluation should also 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. 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 the 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. MICHAEL MARTIN 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.