Citation Nr: 18144142 Decision Date: 10/24/18 Archive Date: 10/23/18 DOCKET NO. 15-10 630 DATE: October 24, 2018 REMANDED Whether an overpayment of Department of Veterans Affairs Chapter 33 (Post 9/11 GI Bill) education benefits in the amount of $8,489.15 was properly created is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from February 1991 to December 2002 and additional periods of service in the U.S. Air National Guard. The appellant is the Veteran’s spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran and his wife testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at an April 2018 videoconference hearing. A transcript of this hearing is of record. The issue of entitlement to a waiver of overpayment was claimed by the Veteran in November 2013, and denied in a subsequent February 2014 Decision on Waiver of Indebtedness. The Veteran did not file an appeal; therefore, the issue of waiver of overpayment is not before the Board. 1. Whether an overpayment of Department of Veterans Affairs Chapter 33 (Post 9/11 GI Bill) education benefits in the amount of $8,489.15 was properly created is remanded. The Post-9/11 GI Bill, 38 U.S.C. Chapter 33, provides for VA educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces based on active duty service after September 10, 2001. 38 U.S.C. § 3311; 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.9500 - 21.9770. The appellant, as the Veteran’s spouse, was awarded Chapter 33 educational benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, because the Veteran had transferred the benefits to her. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.9570. In this case, the appellant’s basic eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits are not in dispute. Rather, the validity of the debt concerns whether the appellant received educational benefits in the form of a monthly housing allowance and Yellow Ribbon program benefits that she was not entitled to, because the Veteran was on active duty service. In 2012 and 2013 decisions, VA had informed the appellant that she was eligible to receive 100 percent of the Veteran’s transferred educational benefits based on the length of his creditable active duty service, which amounted to 2,698 total aggregate service days, from February 10, 1991 to September 16, 2012. In addition to tuition and fees, VA indicated that Samford University had engaged into an agreement to cover her unmet expenses under the Yellow Ribbon Program. The appellant also received a monthly housing allowance and a books and supplies stipend. See November 2012, January 2013, May 2013, and June 2013 certificates of eligibility. In an August 2013 decision, the RO indicated that due to the Veteran’s additional periods of active duty service, the appellant had incurred an overpayment. The RO indicated that for the period of enrollment at Samford University from January 3, 2013 to May 16, 2013, the appellant incurred a Yellow Ribbon Program overpayment in the amount of $3,786.25 and a monthly housing allowance overpayment through August 10, 2013 in the amount of $4,702.90. This resulted in a total overpayment in the amount of $8,489.15. The RO found that this overpayment was created, because the appellant was not due a monthly housing allowance or Yellow Ribbon Program benefits during the periods when the Veteran was on active duty. In a March 2014 statement of the case (SOC), the RO listed, among the evidence reviewed, Department of Defense (DOD) records that reflected the Veteran’s active duty service dates. According to the SOC, VA reviewed the Veteran’s DOD record in August 2013, after VA had received another enrollment certification from Samford University. The SOC listed the Veteran’s additional periods of active duty service reflected by the Veteran’s DOD records as follows: September 15, 2012 to September 16, 2012; September 23, 2012 to October 3, 2012; October 5, 2012 to October 8, 2012; October 27, 2012 to October 28, 2012; October 31, 2012 to November 3, 2012; November 24, 2012 to February 22, 2013; March 10, 2013 to March 11, 2013; March 17, 2013 to March 20, 2013; and March 24, 2013 to March 25, 2013. However, the record does not include any official department records reflecting these periods of active duty service. Currently, the record includes a document titled “Work Product Summary,” which lists the Veteran’s individual periods of active duty service from February 1991 to September 2012. These dates reflected on the “Work Product Summary” correspond to the dates listed on the March 2014 SOC. Nevertheless, the record does not contain any documentation, including a “Work Product Summary,” which reflects the additional periods of active duty service identified in the March 2014 SOC. Given that these additional periods of active duty service are at issue in this case, additional development is required to obtain the Veteran’s DOD records. Additionally, in reviewing the March 2014 SOC, the Board found a discrepancy in the listed dates of the Veteran’s periods of active duty service. According to the March 2014 SOC, the Veteran’s DOD records show that he had individual periods of active duty service from August 11, 2012 to September 16, 2012 and from September 15, 2012 to September 16, 2012. Currently, the record contains a “Work Product Summary” which only lists the Veteran’s active duty service period from August 11, 2012 to September 16, 2012. As the dates identified in the March 2014 SOC for these periods of active duty service overlap, a remand is required to obtain the Veteran’s DOD records which contain the Veteran’s individual periods of active duty service dated from August 11, 2012 to August 31, 2013. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Request from official sources, to include the DOD, records reflecting the Veteran’s periods of active duty service in the Air National Guard from August 11, 2012 through August 31, 2013. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Journet Shaw