Citation Nr: 21024907 Decision Date: 04/26/21 Archive Date: 04/26/21 DOCKET NO. 14-43 903 DATE: April 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to payments under the Veterans’ Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP) for terms after March 31, 2014, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1973 to April 1980. This matter originates from a March 2014 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) that paid the Veteran a one-time lump sum payment of VRAP benefits for his period of school enrollment beginning February 10, 2014. The Veteran appealed that determination to the Board with respect to the amount of benefits that he received. In an August 2010 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s appeal for additional VRAP benefits. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (CAVC or Court) and in a decision dated in October 2020, the Court vacated the Board’s August 2018 decision and remanded the matter back to the Board. See Welcome v. Wilkie, 22 Vet. App. 77 (2020). The matter is once again before the Board. VRAP was a component of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, passed by Congress, and signed into law on November 21, 2011. See Pub. L. No. 112-56, §211, 125 Stat. 712-15 (Nov. 21, 2011). The VRAP directed VA, in cooperation with the Department of Labor (DOL) to pay for up to 12 months of retraining assistance in a “high demand” occupation for unemployed eligible veterans between the ages of 35 and 60 as determined by DOL and VA. Pursuant to Pub. L. No. 112-56, 125 Stat. 713, §211(k), authority to make payments under VRAP terminated on March 31, 2014. The pertinent facts show that the Veteran applied for and was approved for VRAP benefits in September 2013 for a motorboat maintenance program at George Stone Technical Center. Due to the popularity of the program, the Veteran was unable to begin his courses until February 10, 2014. He was informed in a letter from the AOJ in February 2014 that he was entitled to 12 months and 0 days of education benefits. Approximately one month later, in March 2014, the AOJ informed him that VA’s authority to issue VRAP payments would be ending on March 31, 2014, and the AOJ would be issuing him a one-time lump sum payment in the amount of $3,296. He was informed that this payment represented one month and nine days of benefits for his enrollment as of March 31, 2014. The AOJ explained to the Veteran that the amount paid was based on either the date of the end of the term that he was enrolled in as of March 31, 2014; the date his enrollment dropped below full-time, June 30, 2014; or the date on which he would exhaust his twelve months of benefits, whichever was sooner. The Veteran disagreed with the ending date of his benefits and appealed to the Court. The Court found that there was no statutory basis for limiting the Veteran’s lump sum payment to the end of the term that he was enrolled in and that this end date determination did not constitute a reasonable interpretation of VRAP. The Court reasoned that to discontinue benefits for these veterans before the end of the education program designed to provide them with the training and credentials to obtain employment in high-demand occupations ran counter to the purpose of VRAP which, as noted, was to provide educational benefits for older, unemployed veterans, who were not entitled to receive any other educational assistance, and who were not enrolled in a federal or state job training program. §211(e)(1) (A-F), 125 Stat. at 713-14. The Court explained that VRAP benefits were tethered to the program of education, not to the current term of enrollment, and that the Veteran’s payment “should have corresponded to the full extent of his eligibility”. The Court also noted that since the Board determined the issue as a matter of law and did not make factual findings concerning the nature of the Veteran’s course of study and his enrollment status after March 31, 2014, it was precluded from making these factual determinations in the first instance and it remanded the matter back to the Board. In written argument in April 2021, the Veteran’s representative submitted additional information regarding the Veteran’s program and enrollment at George Stone Technical Center and asserted that the evidence was sufficient for the Board to grant the Veteran additional VRAP benefits. However, the Board finds that such factual matters must be reviewed by the AOJ in the first instance. Accordingly, this case must be remanded to the AOJ to make factual findings necessary to award the Veteran VRAP benefits to the full extent of his eligibility. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate, the AOJ should make the necessary factual findings regarding the nature and extent of the Veteran’s training program at George Stone Technical Center beginning April 1, 2014, and readjudicate his entitlement to additional VRAP benefits to the full extent of his eligibility. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Shawkey, Anne M. 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.