Citation Nr: 21041468 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 14-06 241A DATE: July 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) services under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 1988 to March 1991. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 determination by the VR&E office at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Outpatient Clinic in Sunrise, Florida. In his February 2014 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated that he wanted to appear at a Board hearing. However, he later withdrew that request in September 2020. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). Entitlement to VR&E services under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31 is remanded. At issue in the present case is the continued feasibility of the Veteran's vocational goal to continue VR&E services; specifically, the need for further evaluations. The Board finds that, unfortunately, further development is necessary prior to adjudicating this claim. The purpose of VA's rehabilitation program is to provide for services and assistance necessary to enable Veterans with service-connected disabilities to achieve independence in daily living and, to the extent possible, to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable employment. 38 U.S.C. § 3101; 38 C.F.R. § 21.70. The goal of VR&E services is not to afford the Veteran any level of employment that he wishes, but to obtain entry-level employment. Id. The Board notes that the Veteran's interests and capabilities must be considered when determining "suitable employment." See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 21.50(c). A vocational goal is "reasonably feasible" when the following criteria are met: (1) a vocational goal must be identified; (2) a veteran's physical and mental conditions must permit training to begin within a reasonable period; and (3) a veteran must possess the necessary educational skills and background to pursue the goal or will be provided services by VA to develop such necessary educational skills as part of the program. 38 C.F.R. § 21.53(d). The phrase "achievement of a vocational goal is reasonably feasible" means the effects of a veteran's disabilities (service and nonservice-connected), when considered in relation to his circumstances, do not prevent him or her from successfully pursuing a vocational rehabilitation program and successfully becoming gainfully employed in an occupation consistent with a veteran's abilities, aptitudes, and interests. 38 C.F.R. § 21.35(h). In this case, VR&E staff have questioned the Veteran's continued feasibility as it relates to VR&E benefits. VR&E requested a new evaluation of the Veteran, which he previously refused. Upon review of the evidence, the Board agrees that a new evaluation to properly determine feasibility is needed. In this regard, the Board notes that since the Veteran's last evaluation by a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) in December 2011, he has been awarded service connection for lumbar radiculopathy of the left lower extremity (femoral and sciatic nerves), an incisional hernia of the stomach, a scar of the abdomen, and erectile dysfunction, as well as increased ratings for his service-connected adjustment disorder and lumbar spine condition and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) from March 17, 2014. See rating decisions entered in January 2012, June 2015, July 2018, April 2021, and June 2021. The Veteran also has pending claims for service connection and increased ratings that have been remanded for further development by the Board. See Board Decision dated February 2021. Given the significant amount of time that has passed since the Veteran's case was last reviewed by a vocational rehabilitation specialist, as well as evidence indicating that his disabilities have worsened since he was last evaluated, he should be afforded a new Vocational Rehabilitation assessment that considers all of the evidence of record. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's refusal of an evaluation at least in part led to the current appeal. In that regard, the Veteran is reminded that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). While VA has a statutory duty to assist him in developing evidence pertinent to his claim, he also has a duty to assist and cooperate with VA in developing necessary evidence. If he fails to do so, his claim may be denied. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that updated records from the Veteran's vocational rehabilitation and employment folder have been associated with the electronic claims file. 2. Arrange for the Veteran to be afforded a vocational rehabilitation evaluation and functional capacity evaluation that ascertains the current limitations caused by his service-connected disabilities and its effect on his ability to obtain and maintain suitable employment. It is noted that the Veteran is service connected for lumbar disk displacement, rated at 40 percent disabling; adjustment disorder, rated as 30 percent disabling; left lower extremity lumbar radiculopathy (sciatic nerve), rated as 10 percent disabling; left lower extremity lumbar radiculopathy (femoral nerve), rated as 10 percent disabling; and an incisional hernia of the stomach, a scar of the abdomen, and erectile dysfunction, all evaluated as 0 (zero) percent disabling. He is also in receipt of a TDIU from March 17, 2014. The evaluation should include: (a.) Any clinically indicated medical examinations and testing for service-connected disability, to include a mental health evaluation, if needed; and (b.) Evaluation by an appropriate vocational rehabilitation counselor to determine: i. Whether the Veteran has an employment handicap as determined in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 21.51; ii. Whether the Veteran has a "serious employment handicap" under 38 C.F.R. § 21.52; and iii. Whether the achievement of the employment goal as expressed by the Veteran is reasonably feasible under 38 C.F.R. § 21.53. The evaluation should specifically address whether the Veteran's aptitudes and abilities are consistent with his proposed vocational goal and whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities have worsened to the extent that their effects make achievement of an employment goal infeasible. 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. 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.