Citation Nr: 19136704 Decision Date: 05/10/19 Archive Date: 05/10/19 DOCKET NO. 17-44 665 DATE: May 10, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) education benefits is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from January 2012 to January 2017. 2. In December 2016, the Veteran applied for Montgomery GI Bill (Chapter 30) education benefits. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for election of education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill have not been met. 10 U.S.C. § 2171; 38 U.S.C. § 3322; 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.9505, 21.9520. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 2012 to January 2017. The case is on appeal from a May 2017 rating decision. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its findings of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). 1. Entitlement to Chapter 33 education benefits The Veteran is seeking Chapter 33 education benefits. In December 2016, the Veteran applied for Chapter 30 education benefits. He began receiving Chapter 30 benefits in January 2017. The Veteran states that he realized in the spring of 2017 that Chapter 33 benefits would be of greater use in pursuing his degree, so he applied for Chapter 33 benefits in April 2017. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 3322, an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter [38 USCS §§ 3001 et seq.] who is also eligible for educational assistance under chapter 30, 31, 32, or 35 of this title may not receive assistance under two or more such programs concurrently, but shall elect (in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe) under which chapter or provisions to receive educational assistance. The bar to duplication of educational assistance of benefits became effective August 1, 2011. The Veteran has a single period of active service from January 2012 to January 2017. As such, his Chapter 30 benefits were granted based on this service alone, which occurred after August 1, 2011. Therefore, it follows that as a matter of law his service cannot be credited towards Chapter 30 benefits and Chapter 33 benefits. This is so even if the Veteran were relinquish any remaining Chapter 30 eligibility, as the Veteran states he is prepared to do. Further, the Veteran notes that he applied for Chapter 30 benefits because he was told that he could later elect to receive benefits under Chapter 33. Thus, the Veteran appears to argue that he is entitled to Chapter 33 education benefits on an equitable basis. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s contention that he was informed by a representative that he could convert his Chapter 30 benefits to Chapter 33 benefits. However, VA cannot be bound to grant education benefits due to a VA employee misinforming the Veteran regarding eligibility. Eicher v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 57 (2017). The fact that the Veteran may have been provided inaccurate information by VA employees and that he determinately relied upon this information, does not allow the Board to provide equitable relief. While sympathetic to the Veteran, the Board is nonetheless bound by the law and has no authority to grant benefits on an equitable basis. See 38 U.S.C. § 503; see also Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416 (1994). The facts in this case are not in dispute. The Veteran has a single period of eligible active service from January 2012 to January 2017 and concedes that he elected Chapter 30 benefits, though under the assumption that he could later elect Chapter 33 benefits. As the Veteran does not have any other periods of active service to qualify him for Chapter 33 benefits, the Veteran’s application for Chapter 33 benefits in lieu of Chapter 30 benefits must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 3322. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. George 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.