Citation Nr: 0003080 Decision Date: 02/08/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 97-27 593 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Whether achievement of a vocational goal is reasonably feasible for purposes of entitlement to vocational rehabilitation and training under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code. (The issues of entitlement to increased evaluations for right and left knee disorders and the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability are the subject of a separate decision.) REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nicholas M. Auricchio, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1983 to March 1987. This matter is currently before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a May 1997 determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. FINDINGS OF FACT The evidence demonstrates that the veteran has unresolved issues of mental conditions and non-cooperation which currently prevent him from successfully pursuing a vocational rehabilitation program and becoming gainfully employed in an occupation consistent with his abilities, aptitudes and interests. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for finding that achievement of the veteran's vocational goal is reasonably feasible for purposes of entitlement to vocational rehabilitation and training under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 3100, 3101 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.35, 21.53 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Factual Background The record indicates that the veteran is in receipt of noncompensable evaluations for a right wrist fracture, a right femur fracture, and a right pelvis fracture and 30 percent evaluations for a right knee anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency and residuals of a left knee medial meniscectomy. The veteran's non-service-connected disabilities include double vision, facial scars, and a brain disorder. In February 1992, the RO received a VA Form 28- 1900, Disabled Veterans Application for Vocational Rehabilitation. In April 1992, the veteran was scheduled, and appeared in May 1992, for an initial appointment with a VA counselor. A May 1992 VA Counseling Record - Narrative Report indicated that the veteran had never been married, although he was paying support for one child he had out of wedlock. He graduated from high school in May 1983 and then enlisted in the Air Force and served on active duty until March 1987. He had a variety of military duties in which he participated, including first aid paramedic, security policeman and an administrative type position as a postal clerk. The veteran was released from active duty in March 1987 and relocated back to Indiana. He was virtually unemployed until June 1988 when he secured employment at a nursing center. He held that employment for two months and left that for a better paying position. He was employed as a security guard for the Naval Weapons Support Center in Crane, Indiana, from January 1989 to September 1990 when he injured his service-connected knee while performing his security guard duties. He left that position because of injury on the job and was in receipt of workmen's compensation. When this expired, he secured employment in May 1991 and worked until August 1991 at the Paoli Nursing Home in Paoli, Indiana. The veteran had been virtually unemployed since that time and found himself in need of training to offset the limitations imposed by his knee condition. The veteran had been enrolled in coursework in human relations and math. He stated that he would like to train in either the medical field or some other type of employment which would help other people. He was reported to be rather quiet and congenial. The counseling psychologist indicated that that he could not fully explore the veteran's medical condition as this session was simply an intake. Therefore, the counseling psychologist explained the need for the veteran to return for counseling activity to participate in a psychological assessment. However, in a follow-up notation, written at the bottom of the May 1992 Counseling Record, it was indicated that the veteran had been scheduled three times for follow-up counseling sessions in his local area, but failed to show. In a statement, received in September 1992, the veteran indicated that he was unable to make the three prior scheduled appointments because a Red Cross driver did not pick him up for these appointments. He also stated that he could not find work due to his 20 percent disability rating on his right knee. Hence, the veteran wished that another appointment be scheduled as soon as possible in order that he qualify for the vocational rehabilitation program. The RO again scheduled the veteran for appointments in October 1992, February 1993 and January 1994, but he again failed to show for these appointments. A March 1996 VA examination report assessed the veteran with organic brain disorder secondary to head trauma and antisocial personality traits. By an August 1996 statement, the veteran resubmitted his claim for qualification in the VA vocational rehabilitation program. He indicated that, as a disabled veteran, he found that there was great difficulty in finding and achieving suitable employment due to his disabilities. As a result, he stated that he had fallen into debt trying to give himself, and his son, a decent upbringing. In September 1996, the veteran resubmitted a VA Form 28-1900, Disabled Veterans Application for Vocational Rehabilitation. In a VA counseling record for personal information, apparently dated in September 1996, the veteran indicated that he had a bilateral knee disability which prevented him from holding a job due to instability, pain on movement, stiffness, and catching. He also stated that he was unsuited for most labor-type jobs. In a September 1996 VA counseling record for test results, the examiner indicated that the veteran was very cooperative with all testing. He appeared well rested for all testing sessions and put forth the best efforts. It was the examiner's opinion that the results of testing were valid and reflected the veteran's abilities, aptitudes, temperament, and interests. An October 1996 fee-based Career Assessment Inventory, administered by Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., indicated that the veteran's interests were similar to those of people employed as police officer, security guard, data entry operator, dental assistant, counselor-chemical dependency, and aircraft mechanic. In a November 1996 fee-based Job Readiness Assessment/Vocational Evaluation administered by Work Able, Inc., the veteran had been referred for evaluation to determine employment status and employability, to assess aptitudes, interests and abilities, to identify vocational impairments, to determine appropriate vocational goals, and to recommend a plan of services to assist him in overcoming impairments by restoring employability. The veteran reported normal developmental milestones. He enlisted in the Air Force in June 1983 and was stationed in New Amsterdam, Netherlands as an administrative specialist. He was medically discharged in March 1987. The veteran injured his knees in 1984 when he stumbled and fell while walking along a darkened path in New Amsterdam. His left knee was operated on at a civilian hospital in the Netherlands. He re-injured his right knee in 1985. The veteran had five to six surgeries on each knee since the original injury. He was also involved in an automobile accident in October 1985 in Cologne, Germany. As a result of this accident, he fractured his right pelvis and his right femur. His brain disorder and memory loss resulted from a concussion that also occurred in this accident. He was involved in another motor vehicle accident in January 1986 at which time he rear-ended a semi- truck and suffered another concussion when his head smashed through the windshield. He was not wearing his seatbelt. His double vision resulted from this concussion and he wore glasses to correct his vision. His right wrist fracture resulted from a fall in May 1986 due his being unstable from his double vision. The veteran was reported to be unemployed from September 1990 up to the present. He attended Vincennes University in 1988 and took continuing education courses. In 1993, he took Human Relations and College Algebra from Ivy Tech State College. He also attended Indiana University in 1994 for one semester, but was unable to complete his classes because he could not walk across the campus. He reported that there were a number of limitations to his employment due to his bilateral knee disorder, including that his knees were aggravated by any type of movement, feelings of knee numbness, standing/walking/treading aggravated his knees, and extreme cold caused knees pressure. He reported no problems with drug/alcohol abuse or legal difficulties. In the assessment section, the veteran's best interest areas were reported to include Manual/Skilled Trades, Teaching, Clerical/Clerking, and Science. Prominent occupations included Police Officer, Security Guard, Data Entry Operator, Dental Assistant, Counselor-Chemical Dependency, and Aircraft Mechanic. His score on the occupational extroversion- introversion scale indicated a preference for working with people more than with just things. All of these results were consistent with his expressed interest in Computer Programming. However, the evaluator indicated that she would not regard the above results as being indicative of the veteran's interests since when he took the inventory he liked everything. The evaluator also stated that the assessment did not provide a true reflection of the veteran's interests. With respect to vocational exploration, the veteran was interested in gaining knowledge in the computer field and wanted to pursue an Associate in Applied Sciences in Computer Programming. However, the evaluator did not believe the veteran's test scores indicated the ability to achieve a degree in Computer Programming. The veteran did not want to discuss other possible vocational goals. With respect to the veteran's long-term vocational goals, in reviewing testing and expressed vocational desires, the veteran had chosen Computer Programmer as a long-term vocational goal. The counselor, however, did not believe this was an appropriate vocational goal for the veteran. The evaluator wondered if the veteran was feasible for training at that time. In this regard, the evaluator stated the veteran had not worked in six years and he could not provide a plausible explanation about why he was not capable of gaining employment over that length of time. She also stated that she was very concerned about the veteran's brain injuries and the possible effect they would have on his suitability for training or education. The evaluator also discussed the case with an associate in Vincennes who was also familiar with the veteran. He also expressed frustration with the veteran and his inability to find employment. He was not sure if the veteran would be appropriate for educational assistance at the present time because of his "mental" problems. The evaluator recommended an Individualized Extended Evaluation Plan (IEEP). This Plan would include a neurological/psychological examination to assess the veteran's brain injuries and the possible affect those injuries might have concerning his participation in vocational rehabilitation. The evaluator concluded that the veteran seemed eager to attend school, but he was never "eager" to provide the necessary information. He was also late for three scheduled sessions. In a March 1997 VA Counseling Narrative, the veteran was reported to have a number of impairments to current employment, including walking, pushing, climbing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, reaching, feeling, standing, walking, treading, sitting and turning. The counseling psychologist indicated that the veteran was not employed and had great difficulty doing any job and portions of any job aggravated his service-connected disabilities. He did have developed job skills. He had yet to overcome identified vocational impairments. An employment handicap did exist. The counseling psychologist stated that there was ample evidence of record to support a determination of serious employment handicap. It was also his opinion that feasibility for participation in a program of vocational rehabilitation was questionable and that further evaluation in the case was indicated. An IEEP had been developed addressing the veteran's identified needs. In a March 1997 fee-based Functional Capacities Assessment from Good Samaritan Hospital, the veteran was reported to be currently unemployed. Physical limitations that would limit the veteran's job skills included stooping/kneeling, standing, reaching/handling, lifting/carrying, climbing/balancing and vision. Environmental conditions that would limit skills included humidity/wet, vibration, and extremes of temperature. With respect to cognitive skills, there was demonstrated to be appropriate behavior and he was able to follow directions. Psychological observations included that the veteran had a pleasant affect and was compliant with testing. He was motivated to do his best. Occasionally, he tended to exceed symptoms even with cues. He wanted to attend college for Computer Programming if able. He was to undergo three days of testing to determine if this would be possible. The veteran's strengths were that he was compliant with testing and he was motivated to be trained for an occupation. He weaknesses included the continued presence of pain, decreased lifting, push, pull and carrying ability, decreased strength and flexibility in some areas of Saunders' protocol, and bilateral knee limits. The veteran, in April 1997, underwent a three-day fee-based IEEP evaluation administered by Healthsouth Community Rehabilitation Services. In the Physician Summary Notes section, the veteran was reported to have been involved in two motor vehicle accidents in 1985 and 1986, both resulting in concussions. After the first accident, he had coordination deficits, emotional liability, and trouble remembering appointments unless he wrote them down. He was honorably discharged in March 1987. At that time of the evaluation, the veteran had a 60 percent disability for his knees. He was assessed with status post concussion, depression, degenerative joint disease of the knee and wrist, chronic pain, and under evaluation to rule out post concussion syndrome. In the Neuropsychological Consultation, the veteran, during the initial assessment interview, was reported to be quite vague. He indicated severe memory problems with retrograde memory loss to early childhood that would be very unusual for that type of injury. He noted continued problems with learning and memory and intrusive thoughts. He had nightmares and flashbacks about his accident, but upon initial interview he denied any recall of that or other past experiences. The veteran was reported to have made inconsistent statements. He denied substance abuse during the evaluation period, but all staff reported he smelled strongly of alcohol on one of the evaluation days. On another evaluation day, an associate reported that the veteran had slurred speech and he sounded as if has been drinking. The veteran complained of hallucinations and he reported that he had been treated for these at a VA hospital. He also reported that verbal hallucinations occurred all the time and that he also suffered from visual hallucinations. He indicated that his mood was at a very low level and he did not feel like doing anything. The veteran did not indicate any vocational interests. He reported that he flunked out of Indiana University and Vincennes University, but did well in two classes at Ivy-Tech. The veteran stated that he reported to the manager of the Inn that he was staying at that he was robbed of seven dollars he had left in his room. However, the electronic monitoring system did not report any door openings during that period. The Inn also reported that they found numerous small items missing upon the veteran's departure. During the three-day evaluation, the veteran reported having flashbacks to Germany and was apparently quite upset. The next day, although the veteran denied using alcohol, he came into the evaluation smelling of alcohol. Current findings included that the veteran was oriented to person, place, time and situation. In general, his affect was normal and remained stable. His thought pattern was without major delusions or flight. His eye contact was adequate. In general, he appeared to be cooperative and friendly, but he did not appear to be putting forth his best effort. The veteran's long term memory was mildly impaired. Immediate memory for more complex information and delayed memory were moderately impaired. However, his test performance was reported to be inconsistent with his informal performance. Additionally, speed of simple motor operations and attention abilities were mildly impaired. Problem solving abilities were within normal limits. The impression was that the overall testing protocol indicated the veracity of the veteran's deficits were certainly in question. The veteran's performance did not appear to represent his maximum efforts and the performance inconsistencies in his testing also pointed to a possible exaggeration of symptoms. His apparent substance abuse and apparent unauthorized taking of items from his room seemed to indicate this pattern of untruthfulness. Due to the limited evaluation time and the veteran's inconsistencies in the interviews and in his clinical presentation they were unable to delineate true neurobehavioral residuals and there were reported to be possibly none. Further, with respect to an actual psychiatric problem, they were again unable to say. However, consideration of a personality disorder would be reasonable as would the diagnosis of a substance abuse disorder. It was opined that a personality disorder, however, would not appear to preclude the veteran's ability to perform in a work like setting and many people continued to work in spite of substance abuse problems. In the Vocational Rehabilitation Assessment, the veteran was referred for evaluation of neurobehavioral residuals he received as a result of two traumatic brain injury accidents. The veteran was cooperative during the assessment. He recited several poems he had written. He was reported to be extremely flirtatious and inappropriate several times. He complained of continuous knee pain during his assessment period. The veteran reported a history of working as a security guard for one year, but lost this position due to difficulties with his knees and his memory. The veteran appeared to have some difficulty with spatial relations, recognition, sequencing and immediate recall. These results were inconsistent with how the veteran was observed performing functional tasks. The veteran's vocational assets were that he had a home-work history, Air Force experience, follow-through, attendance, time management, initiation, and functional abilities. Vocational liabilities included socialization, knee problems, inconsistent memory problems, manipulation, emotional issues, inappropriate behaviors, and inappropriate sexual comments. In summary, the veteran's testing results were very inconsistent with how he was observed performing functional tasks. He was inappropriate on several occasions. Although the veteran had many deficits that would hinder successful employment, it was very difficult to determine if any residuals were a result of head trauma. Recommendations included that due to inconsistencies in the veteran's test results, he should participate in psychological services before addressing traumatic brain injury residuals that may exist, and additional vocational counseling and exploration should be pursued to determine appropriate vocational goal. In the Speech Language Pathology Assessment, the veteran made several inappropriate comments throughout the testing section. In summary, the veteran demonstrated deficits in the areas of written expression, auditory comprehension and reading comprehension, as well as difficulty with memory, pragmatics and problem solving. These test scores were reported to not be consistent with the veteran's functional abilities. The recommendation was that due to the inconsistency in testing, the veteran should obtain psychological services and then be retested for traumatic brain injury residuals. The Occupational Therapy Assessment reported that after the veteran's accident, he suffered from memory lapse problems, amnesia, nervousness, emotional problems, stress, vision problems, painful knees, and sleep pattern disrupted. The veteran was noted to have had a difficult time since he lost his job as a civilian security guard on an Air Force base. At the time of the evaluation, he was living in a rented house and was independent with all activities of daily living and many instrumental activities of daily living. He was ambulatory, although he could not tolerate standing for long periods due to knee pain. He had no social contacts or social leisure interests. His sleep pattern was dysfunctional. His active range of motion was within functional limits though he complained of wrist pain. He was emotionally labile. The recommendations were that the veteran would benefit from psychological services and a possible substance abuse program before considering a rehabilitation program. It was found to be difficult to determine if his social skills were deficits due to traumatic brain injury or emotional problems. The evaluator also stated that the veteran's physical problems should not preempt employment though he needed a job requiring minimal standing or walking. In a May 1997 VA Special Report of Training, it was noted that the veteran participated in a three-day evaluation with Community Rehabilitation Services in April. There were major concerns by all those involved in the evaluation of the veteran that his psychological issues were severely limiting him. A summary of the evaluation showed that the veteran's veracity of deficits were in question. His performance did not appear to be representative of maximum effort and may have been an exaggeration of symptoms. There was significant concern over the use of alcohol during the evaluation period as the veteran came in smelling of alcohol. His testing results were very inconsistent with how he was observed performing functional tasks. He was sexually inappropriate with some staff. The veteran was also reported to have participated in a Functional Capacities Assessment at Good Samaritan Hospital in which he was noted to be appropriate and compliant. The evaluation was reviewed with a VA counseling psychologist and it was decided the veteran's primary issues surrounded his brain injury and apparent substance abuse problem. It was the rating specialist's opinion and that of the VA counseling psychologist that the veteran was not currently feasible for Chapter 31 services as his non-service-connected disorders of brain injury, personality disorder, and substance abuse significantly impaired his ability to train or maintain employment. In a May 1997 VA feasibility determination, the counseling psychologist stated that the veteran was provided a comprehensive extended evaluation by Work Able, Inc. Based on this evaluation, the counseling psychologist determined that veteran was not reasonably feasible for participation in a program of rehabilitation services. In a May 1997 VA determination letter, the veteran received notice that Vocational Rehabilitation Services were denied. The veteran was found to have a Serious Employment Handicap and, thus, it was determined that he was medically infeasible for participation in the Chapter 31 program. In was the opinion of the VA counseling psychologist that, because of the severity and chronicity of the veteran's service- connected disabilities, he was unable to participate in a program of rehabilitation and would not benefit from Chapter 31 services. It was also his opinion that the veteran's physical condition was a permanent barrier to competitive gainful employment. The veteran appealed this determination. In a claim, received in November 1998, the veteran attempted to reapply for vocational rehabilitation services. The VA, in a November 1998 letter addressed to the veteran, indicated that his evaluation was completed in May 1997 of his potential to benefit from the training and services provided under the VA Vocational Rehabilitation Program. It was noted that careful consideration was given to the information the veteran provided as well as information obtained from a comprehensive evaluation by Healthsouth Rehabilitation Center. It was stated that it was the unanimous opinion of all the professional evaluators that the veteran would not benefit from a plan of rehabilitation. The reasons for this were that he showed up for the evaluation smelling of alcohol, he was caught faking poor performance, he made several inappropriate and offensive sexual comments to his female evaluator, and he was accused by the hotel (provided for by VA expense) of "stealing everything not nailed down." The veteran was requested to provide verifiable information and documentation that the above mentioned problems had been addressed and corrected, or no further action would be taken by VA. At his May 1999 RO hearing, the veteran acknowledged that he had been found entitled to the VA vocational rehabilitation Chapter 31 benefits program, but was found to not be feasible for the program. The veteran agreed that the reasons why he had not been found feasible for the program were based on the allegations of showing up for the evaluations smelling of alcohol, being caught making poor performance, making several inappropriate and offensive sexual comments to a female evaluator, and being accused by the hotel, which was provided for at VA expense during his extended evaluation, of "stealing everything not nailed down." The veteran also agreed that in the November 1998 VA vocational rehabilitation letter, he was told of the above allegations and that he was to provide verifiable information and documentation that the allegations listed above had been addressed and corrected. The veteran testified that he had done this by continuing to improve himself on a daily basis, but admitted that he had not sent anything to VA in regards to improving himself. The veteran stated that he had completed a one-month, 30-day, 20- day alcohol rehabilitation program and that he was free of alcohol dependence or drug dependence. He indicated that due to his past drug and/or alcohol problems, his behavior had been abnormal prior to his recovery. The veteran testified that he was not prosecuted by the hotel. The veteran stated that he was not currently involved in any outpatient substance abuse or alcohol abuse program in the last six months. He was not currently working. Analysis Pertinent law and regulations indicate that a veteran shall be entitled to a program of rehabilitation services under 38 U.S.C.A. Chapter 31 if the veteran has a service-connected disability of 20 percent or more and is determined to be in need of rehabilitation to overcome an employment handicap. 38 C.F.R. § 21.40 (1999). As the veteran has a 60 percent combined rating for his service-connected disabilities and has been found to have an employment handicap as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 21.35(a) (1999), he has met the basic eligibility requirements under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code. The provisions of Chapter 31 are intended to enable veterans with service-connected disabilities to achieve maximum independence in daily living and, to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable employment. 38 U.S.C.A. § 3100 (West 1991). The RO has found the veteran to be eligible for Chapter 31 benefits, but has denied entitlement to vocational rehabilitation and training based on a finding that the veteran's vocational goal is not reasonably feasible. The term "vocational goal" is defined by statute as gainful employment consistent with a veteran's abilities, aptitudes and interests. 38 U.S.C.A. § 3101(8) (West 1991). In order to find that the achievement of a particular vocational goal is reasonably feasible, the facts must show that the effects of the veteran's service-connected and non-service-connected disabilities, when considered in relation to his circumstances, do not prevent successful pursuit of a vocational rehabilitation program and successful employment. 38 C.F.R. § 21.35(h)(2) (1999). The criteria for feasibility are: (1) a vocational goal must be identified; (2) the veteran's physical and mental conditions must permit training to begin within a reasonable period; and (3) the veteran must possess the necessary educational skills and background to pursue the goal. 38 C.F.R. § 21.53(d) (1999). In making the determination as to the feasibility of a vocational goal, VA must offer an initial evaluation under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 21.50 (1999). However, where such determination cannot be made on the basis of information developed during the initial evaluation, an extended evaluation is required. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.57 (1999). The determination of the reasonable feasibility of a veteran achieving a vocational goal will be made at the earliest time possible during an extended evaluation, but not later than the end of the period of evaluation. Any reasonable doubt will be resolved in the veteran's favor. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.57(c)(1) (1999). Moreover, if VA determines that a veteran has failed to maintain satisfactory conduct or cooperation, VA may, after determining that all reasonable counseling efforts have been made, and are found to be effective, discontinue services and assistance to the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 21.364(a). The veteran is responsible for satisfactory conduct and cooperation in developing and implementing a program of rehabilitative services under Chapter 31. 38 C.F.R. § 21.362(a). After a thorough review of the probative evidence, the Board finds that the veteran's continued training in pursuit of a vocational goal is not reasonably feasible at this time. In this regard, the Board notes that the evidence of record indicates that the veteran received an initial evaluation at which time it was determined that further evaluation was necessary in order to determine the probability of the veteran maintaining stable, continuing employment; in other words, feasibility for achievement of a vocational goal remained to be determined. Accordingly, it was arranged for the veteran to undergo an Individualized Extended Evaluation Plan (IEEP) to determine the feasibility of his maintaining stable, continuing employment. With respect to the IEEP, the veteran began this evaluation, administered by Healthsouth Community Rehabilitation Services, in April 1997. However, all consultants involved reported that the veteran had a number of outstanding problems. The Neuropsychological Consultant stated the veteran reported that he had no vocational interests. The veteran also made inconsistent statements. Although he denied substance abuse during the evaluation period, all staff reported that he smelled of alcohol on one of the evaluation days. The consultant concluded that the veracity of the veteran's deficits were certainly in question. His performance did not appear to represent his maximum efforts and the performance inconsistencies in his testing also pointed to the possible exaggeration of symptoms. His apparent substance abuse and apparent unauthorized taking of items from his room seemed to indicate this pattern of untruthfulness. The consultant reported that, with respect to a psychiatric disorder, the consideration of personality disorder would be reasonable, as would be the diagnosis of a substance abuse disorder. The Vocational Rehabilitation Assessment reported vocational liabilities of socialization, knee problems, inconsistent memory problems, manipulation, emotional issues, inappropriate behaviors and inappropriate sexual comments. The consultant concluded that that the veteran had many deficits that would hinder successful employment. The recommendation was that due to the inconsistencies in the veteran's test results, he should seek psychological treatment before addressing traumatic brain injury residuals that may exist. The Occupational Therapy Assessment recommendation was that the veteran would benefit from psychological services and a possible substance abuse program before considering a rehabilitation program. Overall, the IEEP evaluators' recommendations were that the veteran was not ready for vocational rehabilitation and that he should instead seek psychiatric counseling. In the Board's view, the VA met its obligation to assist the veteran by according him the opportunity to undergo an extended evaluation for the purpose of determining the need for Chapter 31 training and feasibility of his chosen vocational goal. Based on this period of extended evaluation, a VA vocational rehabilitation rating specialist, in a May 1997 Special Report of Training, indicated that the IEEP was reviewed with a VA counseling psychologist and they decided that the veteran's primary issues surrounded his brain injury and apparent substance abuse. It was the rating specialist's opinion and that of the VA counseling psychologist that the veteran was not currently feasible for Chapter 31 services as his non-service-connected disorders of brain injury, personality disorder and substance abuse significantly impaired his ability to train or maintain employment. Upon careful review of all the evidence of record, the Board would have to agree with the assessment of the May 1997 Special Report of Training. In this respect, the veteran was diagnosed, on VA examination in March 1996, with organic brain disorder secondary to head trauma and antisocial personality traits and these disorders clearly affected his performance, as indicated above, during the three-day IEEP evaluation conducted by Healthsouth Community Rehabilitation Services. Further, at his May 1999 RO hearing, the veteran acknowledged that the reasons why he had not been found feasible for the VA vocational rehabilitation program were based on the allegations of showing up for the evaluations smelling of alcohol, being caught making poor performance, making several inappropriate and offensive sexual comments to a female evaluator, and being accused by the hotel, which was provided for at VA expense during his extended evaluation, of "stealing everything not nailed down." The veteran also agreed that, in the November 1998 VA vocational rehabilitation letter, he was told of the above allegations and that he was to provide verifiable information and documentation that the allegations listed above had been addressed and corrected. Although the veteran testified that he had done this by continuing to improve himself on a daily basis, he admitted that he had not sent any verifiable documentation to VA demonstrating that the aforementioned allegations had been addressed and corrected. Further, at this hearing, the veteran acknowledged that he had a substance abuse problem with respect to alcohol and that his behavior had been abnormal prior to his recovery. He stated he had completed a one-month, 30-day, 20-day alcohol rehabilitation program and that he was free of alcohol dependence. The Board would also point out that the veteran also acknowledged that he was not currently involved in any outpatient substance abuse or alcohol abuse program over the prior six months. Under the law the veteran is required to cooperate in the completion of the extended evaluation for purposes of developing an appropriate rehabilitation plan and in the satisfactory conduct and cooperation in developing and implementing a program of rehabilitative services under Chapter 31. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.362, 21.364 (1999). However, based on the veteran's conduct during the April 1997 extended evaluation and his subsequent May 1999 hearing testimony, it is apparent to the Board that the veteran has not cooperated in developing and implementing a program of rehabilitative services under Chapter 31. The facts show that the effects of the veteran's issues of unresolved psychiatric and substance abuse problems prevent him from successfully pursuing a vocational rehabilitation program and successful employment. 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.35, 21.53(d). The veteran has also demonstrated the current inability to relate to persons of a different gender in an appropriate manner. At this time, the veteran has not identified a vocational goal that he is reasonably capable of completing and the veteran's unresolved psychiatric and substance abuse problems do not permit training to begin within a reasonable period. 38 C.F.R. § 21.53(d). The evidence is not evenly balanced in this case and the Board concludes that the attainment of a vocational goal by this veteran is not feasible at this time. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 3100, 3101, 3106; 38 C.F.R. § 21.53. Thus, on the basis of the record, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim seeking vocational rehabilitation benefits under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code. ORDER As the achievement of a vocational goal is not reasonably feasible for purposes of entitlement to vocational rehabilitation and training under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, the appeal is denied. WARREN W. RICE, JR. Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals