Citation Nr: 21042658 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 158 DATE: July 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to VA educational assistance benefits under the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP) for a course of study at American Fitness Professionals and Associates is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from October 1978 to March 1998. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 administrative decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Processing Center (RPO) in Buffalo, New York. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2018 at which time the case was remanded for additional development. The matter is once again before the Board. The Veteran disagrees with the Agency of Original Jurisdiction's (AOJ's) November 2013 denial of education benefits under VRAP for her enrollment in a Nutrition and Wellness Consultant Certification course at American Fitness Professionals and Associates. VRAP was a component of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. Pub. L. 112-56, §§ 201-65 (Nov. 21, 2011). In relevant part, Congress established the program to provide retraining assistance to eligible veterans from October 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014. Id. at § 211(a). Although VRAP ended on March 31, 2014, the Veteran's appeal for this benefit was pending prior to this date and pertains to training that was received prior to this date. Accordingly, a decision on whether she is eligible for VRAP benefits is warranted. Records show that while the Veteran's school, American Fitness Professionals and Associates (AFPS), was approved for VRAP benefits in September 2013, the Nutrition and Wellness Consultant Certification course that she was enrolled in was not approved per the November 2013 denial. The AOJ informed the Veteran that licensing and certification tests were not covered by VRAP. However, in the Board's April 2018 remand, the Board noted that licensing and certification tests were included in VRAP pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 3452(b). The Board thus remanded the matter to the AOJ in April 2018 to obtain an additional explanation as to how the Veteran's training program does not qualify as a "program of education" as defined by 38 U.S.C. § 3452(b). The Board also directed the AOJ to determine whether the Veteran's training program met the criteria for training in a high-demand occupation, and to thereafter issue the Veteran a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) if the benefits that she was seeking continued to be denied. In May 2018, an education note was added to the Veteran's claims file finding that the Veteran's occupation of dietetic technician met the criteria for a high-demand occupation. A subsequent education note added to the claims file in February 2019 continued to deny VRAP benefits on the basis that VRAP programs must be full time and that "LACs [licensing and certifications] are not considered full time in nature". That finding is contrary to the Veteran's assertion that it was a full time program consisting of six months and 150 hours of course instruction. While an October 2013 letter on file from the school verifies the Veteran's enrollment in the Nutrition and Wellness Consultation Certification Course as of that date, the letter does not indicate whether the program was full time in accordance with pertinent VA regulation. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.4270, 21.4272. Indeed, the Veteran pointed this out in writing in July 2014 when she said that the school failed to send a VA Enrollment Certification (Form 22-1999). In view of the conflicting evidence presently of record regarding whether the Veteran's enrollment in the Nutrition and Wellness Consultant Certification course was full time, this case must be remanded so that the AOJ can obtain verification from the school regarding this matter. Moreover, it does not appear that the AOJ followed the Board's directive to issue the Veteran a SSOC pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 since there is no such statement on file. A Board remand confers a right on a claimant to compliance with the remand order. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). While the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the appellant's claim so that she is afforded every possible consideration. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain from the Veteran's school, AFPA, an enrollment certification (VA Form 22-1999) for the Veteran's enrollment in the Nutrition and Wellness Consultation Certification course beginning in October 2013, to specifically include whether the course was full time. 2. After ensuring compliance with the above, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be provided a SSOC. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Shawkey, 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.