Citation Nr: 18155668 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 15-18 126 DATE: December 4, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an extension of the delimiting date for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code (Montgomery GI Bill), beyond February 24, 2010, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was separated from active duty service on February 23, 2000. 2. The Veteran did not submit a request for extension of the delimiting date within one year after the original delimiting date or within one year after recuperating from disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an extension of the delimiting date for receiving Chapter 30 educational benefits are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 3031 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.7050, 21.7051 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Entitlement to an extension of the delimiting date for educational assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill beyond February 24, 2010. The Veteran requests an extension of the Chapter 30 delimiting date for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) education benefits. He asserts that he was precluded from using Chapter 30 benefits because he had not been properly notified that he was eligible for benefits. The Veteran’s August 2014 application for MGIB education benefits was denied by the RO because while he was eligible for benefits, the Veteran’s application came after his delimiting date. See December 2014 Statement of the Case. The time period for filing a claim for an extended period of eligibility for education benefits is one year from the date when the eligible individual’s original period of eligibility ended; or, one year from the date on which the eligible individual’s physical or mental disability no longer prevented him or her from beginning or resuming a chosen program of education. 38 C.F.R. § 21.1033 (c). The Veteran most recently served on active duty from June 3, 1990 to February 23, 2000. As such, the basic period of eligibility for receiving Chapter 30 educational benefits ended on February 23, 2010. 38 C.F.R. § 21.7050. In order for the Veteran to receive MGIB benefits, an extension of the delimiting date is necessary. VA shall grant an extension of the applicable delimiting period provided that a veteran applies for an extension within a specified time period, and demonstrating that he or she was prevented from initiating or completing the chosen program during the original period due to physical or mental disability that did not result from that veteran’s willful misconduct. Medical evidence must clearly establish that such a program of education was medically infeasible. 38 C.F.R. § 21.7051 (a)(2). Extension requests are subject to timeliness restrictions. 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.1033 (c), 21.7051(a). An extension may also be granted when a claimant establishes good cause for an untimely request. 38 C.F.R. § 21.1033 (e). VA must receive a claim for an extended period of eligibility by the later of the following dates: One year from the date on which a veteran’s original period of eligibility ended, or one year from the date on which the eligible claimant’s physical or mental disability no longer prevented him from beginning or resuming a chosen program of education. 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.1033 (c), 21.7051(a). The Veteran applied for VA education benefits in August 2014 for a course of study that was to begin in October of that year. As this application was received after the February 23, 2010 delimiting date, his application was considered to be a request for an extension of that delimiting date. However, because it was received over 4 years after the delimiting date, it cannot be considered timely. Even if the application had been filed within a year of the delimiting date, the Board finds that the Veteran’s circumstances were not such that an extension could be granted. Under 38 C.F.R. § 21.7051, an extension of the delimiting date may be granted if the Veteran was prevented from initiating or completing the chosen program during the original period due to physical or mental disability. The evidence does not indicate that the Veteran was prevented from using his educational benefits due to any physical or mental disability, and he does not contend as such. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran does not meet the requirement of physical or mental disability which prevented him from initiating or completing his educational program; therefore, the request for an extension of the delimiting date must be denied. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.7051. Specifically, the Veteran alleges that when he called VA to ask about the MGIB he was informed he was not eligible for any benefits. See April 2014 VA Form 9 and October 2104 Notice of Disagreement. However, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), citing to an opinion by the United States Supreme Court, has held that anyone dealing with Government is charged with knowledge of federal statutes and lawfully promulgated agency regulations, regardless of actual knowledge or hardship resulting from innocent ignorance. See Morris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 260, 265 (1991), citing Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 33 U.S. 380, 384-85; 68 S. Ct. 1, 3; 92 L. Ed. 10 (1947). Indeed, the Court recently confirmed that VA regulations are “binding on all who seek to come within their sphere,” regardless of whether an appellant has actual knowledge of what is in the regulations. Jernigan v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 220 (2012). Thus, while the Veteran may arguably have not been informed of the delimiting date prior to 2010, he had the ultimate responsibility to inform himself of the filing requirements and to abide by those requirements. As for his contention that he was provided incorrect information regarding the timeframe under which he could use his education benefits that is, that there was no deadline for their use, the Board notes that there is no provision in law for the extension of a delimiting date based upon any such detrimental reliance. Id. While the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s position, the applicable law and regulations are clear, and the Board is bound by the law. It lacks the authority to grant benefits on an equitable basis, as no equities, no matter how compelling, can create a right to payment out of the United States Treasury that has not been provided for by Congress. See 38 U.S.C.A § 503; see also Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416, 425 (1994); Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 429 (1992). In addition, the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s contention that the MGIB form dated April 1999 was a forged document. As such, the Board did not consider this document when analyzing the Veteran’s claim. Accordingly, as the evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that the Veteran did not file a request for extension within the requisite period, his request for extension of the delimiting date must be denied based on a lack of entitlement under the law. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Biggins, Associate Counsel