Citation Nr: 21029498 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 19-14 565 DATE: May 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) services, including a change in the Veteran's vocational rehabilitation employment goal, additional education in pursuit of a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), or other appropriate additional training in pursuit of entry-level employment, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 2000 to June 2005, and in the United States Army from February 2006 to August 2014, to include service in Iraq and Afghanistan. His decorations include the Combat Action Ribbon, the Combat Action Badge, the Parachutist Badge, and the Ranger Tab. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was previously before the Board in March 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 VR&E services, including a change in the Veteran's vocational rehabilitation employment goal, additional education in pursuit of a M.D., or other appropriate additional training in pursuit of entry-level employment, is remanded. The purpose of VA's rehabilitation program is to provide services and assistance necessary to enable veterans with service-connected disabilities to achieve independence in daily living and, to the extent possible, become employable and obtain and maintain suitable employment. 38 U.S.C. § 3101; 38 C.F.R. § 21.70. The veteran's interests and capabilities must be considered when determining "suitable employment." See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 21.50(c). As noted above, this case was remanded by the Board in March 2020. In the remand, the Board, among other things, directed that the AOJ obtain a vocational rehabilitation assessment or evaluation that considered the Veteran's capabilities to perform either positions that he was currently qualified for, or for his proposed changes in education and employment, in light of his current service-connected disabilities. Specifically, the vocational rehabilitation counselor (VRC) was to determine whether the Veteran's requested change of the vocational rehabilitation goal to positions requiring a medical, legal, or engineering degree was warranted. The evaluation was to address whether his aptitudes and abilities were consistent with his current education and transferrable skills and the degree requirements and skills of his proposed career and educational changes. In June 2020, a VRC determined that the Veteran had received training that prepared him for suitable employment that was within his interest, aptitudes, and abilities. Specifically, the VRC determined that the Veteran had credentials that qualified him for various employment opportunities in a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) career. The Board finds that the June 2020 report is not entirely in compliance with the Board's remand instructions. First, while the VRC indicated that the Veteran had the capabilities to perform in the STEM field, she did not provide any opinion as to the feasibility of a career requiring a legal or engineering degree. Moreover, in opining that the Veteran had received training within his interest, aptitudes, and abilities, the VRC did not reconcile that finding with the Veteran's past statements that he had no interest in the positions afforded him by his current education and that his disabilities rendered him unable to work in jobs compatible with his current education. See May 2018 Counseling Note; February 2020 correspondence. In light of the foregoing, the Board will remand the case to the AOJ for clarification. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure the entire paper vocational rehabilitation and employment folder has been scanned and associated with the electronic claims file. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, arrange to obtain a clarifying statement from the VRC who prepared the June 2020 report in this case. The VRC should be asked to specifically comment on the feasibility of a career for the Veteran requiring a legal or engineering degree and whether a change in his vocational rehabilitation goal to positions requiring a legal or engineering degree is warranted in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 21.94. The VRC should also be asked to comment on her prior finding that the Veteran had received training within his interest, aptitudes, and abilities, and how that relates to the Veteran's past statements to the effect that he had no interest in the positions afforded him by his current education and that his disabilities rendered him unable to work in jobs compatible with his current education. If additional examinations, testing, evaluations, or assessments are deemed necessary, such should be accomplished. A thorough rationale for all opinions offered, 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 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, 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.