Citation Nr: 21029227 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 18-18 973 DATE: May 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to additional vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) services under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran's DD Form 214 shows that he served on active duty in the U.S. Army from April 1985 to March 1988. He has also reported having active service from May to September 1994. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2018 administrative decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky. This case was previously before the Board in August 2020, 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 regrets the additional delay, further development is necessary to ensure substantial compliance with the prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to additional VR&E services under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31 is remanded. As noted above, this case was remanded by the Board in August 2020. In the remand, the Board directed that the AOJ contact the Veteran, in writing, to clarify his current employment status and to determine whether he was still seeking additional training. The Board further instructed that if the Veteran indicated that he was still in need of additional training, arrangements were to be made to have him afforded a vocational rehabilitation evaluation that ascertained the current limitations caused by his service-connected disability and its effect on his ability to obtain and maintain suitable employment. Following the remand, the record reflects that a VA vocational rehabilitation counselor (VRC) spoke over the telephone with the Veteran in September 2020. See November 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The VRC noted that the Veteran was still currently employed as a Peer Support Specialist and that his service-connected disabilities were not impairing his ability to maintain his current employment. Id. However, the record does not reflect whether the Veteran is continuing to seek additional training. Furthermore, the Veteran has not provided anything in writing specifying his intentions. In light of the above, this case must be remanded to the AOJ for substantial compliance with the Board's August 2020 remand directives. See Stegall, supra. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran, in writing, and request that he provide his current employment status. In doing so, if the Veteran indicates he is still employed, clarify whether he is still seeking additional training. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, if the Veteran indicates that he is still in need of additional training, arrange for him to be afforded a vocational rehabilitation evaluation that ascertains the current limitations caused by his service-connected disability and its effect on his ability to obtain and maintain suitable employment. It is noted that the Veteran is service connected for tinnitus, rated at 10 percent disabling. The evaluation should include: (a.) Any clinically indicated medical examinations and testing for the service-connected disability; and (b.) Evaluation by an appropriate vocational rehabilitation counselor to determine: 1. Whether the achievement of employment by the Veteran pursuant to his current education, work experience, and transferable skills is reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53; and 2. Whether the achievement of the employment goal as expressed by the Veteran is reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53; and 3. Whether further services are appropriate for purposes of attaining the vocational rehabilitation employment goal as communicated by the Veteran in accordance 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 any proposed career and educational changes. 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 SSOC. 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, 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.