Citation Nr: 18158619 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/17/18 DOCKET NO. 15-24 797 DATE: December 18, 2018d ORDER Entitlement to an extension of the delimiting date beyond August [redacted], 2015, for transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The appellant was born in August 1989 and was transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits in August 2009. She was awarded educational benefits with an initial delimiting date of August 1, 2012, which was ultimately extended to August [redacted], 2015. 2. The appellant gave birth in December 2013 and was unable to secure child care in order to continue her studies. As a result, she had to suspend her educational program due to circumstances beyond her control. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an extension of the delimiting date for eligibility to transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits beyond August [redacted], 2015 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 3512 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.3041, 21.3043 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from December 1991 to December 2010. The appellant is his daughter. In 2009, the Veteran transferred his eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits to her. Initially, the appellant was awarded educational benefits with a delimiting date of August 1, 2012. In June of that year, the Veteran requested that the appellant’s benefits be extended to her 26th birthday, or August [redacted], 2015. The extension was granted. The record shows that the appellant pursued an education, first at a college in Nevada and then, from January 2013 to December 2013, at a college in Florida, where she had relocated due to her husband’s military orders. In December 2013, the appellant gave birth to a child. She stopped attending school at this point, as she was unable to secure child care for the infant. In December 2014, the appellant informed VA that she and her husband were returning to Nevada, and would be living near family who would be able to watch her child. As a result, she would be able to return to school and complete her degree. She asked for an extension of her delimiting date, beyond August [redacted], 2015. In a December 2014 letter, her request was denied. At the outset, basic eligibility for education benefits is not in dispute. Rather, the dispute arises from the delimiting date of these benefits. The eligibility period for use of educational assistance benefits by a child generally runs from the child’s 18th to 26th birthday. 38 U.S.C. § 3512 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 21.3041 (a). An extension may be granted beyond that 8-year period if an eligible child suspends pursuit of his program due to conditions that VA determines were beyond the child’s control. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3041 (g). For an eligible person who suspends his or her program of study due to conditions determined by VA to have been beyond their control the period of eligibility may, upon request, be extended by the number of months and days intervening the date the suspension began and the date the reason for suspension ceased to exist. The burden of proof is on the eligible person to establish that suspension of a program was due to conditions beyond their control. The period of suspension shall be considered to have ended as of the date of the person’s first available opportunity to resume training after the condition which caused it ceased to exist. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3043. The following circumstances may be considered as beyond an eligible person’s control: (a) while in active pursuit of a program of education he or she is appointed by the responsible governing body of an established church, officially charged with the selection and designation of missionary representatives, in keeping with its traditional practice, to serve the church in an official missionary capacity and is thereby prevented from pursuit of a program of studies; (b) immediate family or financial obligations beyond their control require the eligible person to take employment, or otherwise preclude pursuit of an education program; (c) unavoidable conditions arising in connection with the eligible person’s employment which preclude pursuit of a program; (d) pursuit of a program is precluded because of the eligible person’s own illness or illness or death in their immediate family; (e) active duty, including active duty for training in the Armed Forces. Id. Here, the appellant has consistently asserted that, but for the lack of child care for her newborn, she would have been able to continue her pursuit of her degree. The Board finds no reason to doubt such assertions, based on her pre-childbirth record of consistent school attendance. Thus, it finds that the appellant has shown that she suspended her education due to immediate family obligations beyond her control, which precluded her ability to pursue an education program. Therefore, resolving all reasonable doubt in the appellant’s favor, the appeal is granted and an extension is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). Finally, the Board notes that the appellant’s period of eligibility is to be extended only by the number of months and days intervening the date the suspension began and the date the reason for suspension ceased to exist. The suspension began in December 2013. As noted above, the reason for the appellant’s suspension—a lack of childcare—ceased to exist when she and her husband returned to Nevada. It is unclear from the record when, exactly, the family returned, as the appellant has consistently used her father’s Nevada address in all correspondence sent to VA throughout the appeal, to include during the time she was living in Florida. The Regional Office is therefore tasked with determining when the appellant and her husband returned to Nevada, and to calculate the extension accordingly. The appellant should note that VA is prohibited from granting an extension beyond the age of 31. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3041 (g). R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeremy J. Olsen, Counsel