Citation Nr: A25035488 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 240307-442241 DATE: April 17, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) services under the provisions of Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not appear for the scheduled VR&E initial evaluation or request the evaluation be rescheduled. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to VR&E services under Chapter 31 for the review period have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 3106; 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.362(c)(1), 21.364. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1983 to August 1987. The administrative decision on appeal was issued in August 2023 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In the March 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2023 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. Entitlement to VR&E services under the provisions of Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code The Veteran is seeking entitlement to VR&E services under the provisions of Chapter 31, Title 38 of the United States Code. A review of the record reveals that the Veteran applied for VR&E benefits on February 3, 2023. Subsequently, on February 7, 2023, the Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) sent the Veteran an appointment notice letter informing him that his VR&E evaluation was scheduled to be held on March 8, 2023. The letter explained what to expect during the meeting and what information was needed to establish the Veteran's entitlement to the benefits being sought. Unfortunately, the Veteran did not show for his scheduled appointment on March 8, 2023. Subsequently, on July 7, 2023, the VRC sent another letter proposing to close the Veteran's claim as a result of the Veteran's absence from his evaluation and the inability to develop a plan of services to meet his needs. The Veteran did not respond and on August 10, 2023, the VRC issued a decision (i.e., VR-58 Decision Letter) stating, "I have decided that I cannot support your request for independent living services. I based this decision on 38 U.S.C. § 3120 and 38 C.F.R. § 21.76." The VRC indicated that the Veteran was scheduled for an initial evaluation appointment but that he did not show for that appointment. On March 7, 2024, the Veteran filed his present appeal. The Board has carefully reviewed the record for the period on review and finds that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Veteran failed to cooperate with VA staff in carrying out the initial evaluation and developing a rehabilitation plan. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.362 (a)(1), (c)(1). In that regard, an appointment letter was sent to the Veteran's known address of record. There is a presumption of regularity in the administrative process, and it is presumed a claimant received proper notice by VA. Boyd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 63, 71-72 (2014) (holding that, under the presumption of regularity, if notice is sent to the claimant's last known address of record, it will be presumed that VA properly discharged its official duties). This presumption may only be rebutted with "clear evidence to the contrary." Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 307, 309 (1992). Here, there is no evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity with respect to the February 7, 2023, appointment notice letter. The Veteran did not appear for the March 8, 2023, initial evaluation or, most importantly, request the appointment be rescheduled. He simply appealed the decision. As the Veteran did not appear for the March 2023 VR&E initial evaluation or request the evaluation be rescheduled, the Veteran did not cooperate with VA to be determined entitled to VR&E services. 38 C.F.R. § 21.364. Appealing the issue before working with VR&E service to reschedule the appointment does not serve the interests of the Veteran or the VA. (continued on next page)? Accordingly, entitlement to VR&E services under Chapter 31 for the review period for this appeal is denied. If the Veteran believes that he meets the legal requirements to establish entitlement to VR&E services, he is encouraged to reapply for VR&E benefits in the future. Wendy Daknis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.