Citation Nr: 19159552 Decision Date: 07/31/19 Archive Date: 07/31/19 DOCKET NO. 18-08 649 DATE: July 31, 2019 REMANDED The issue of whether an overpayment of Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) VA education benefits in the amount of $1,600.78 ($1564.81 for tuition and fees and $35.97 for books and supplies) is valid is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 2013 to April 2016. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The facts of this case show that effective November 30, 2016, the Veteran was awarded education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) in lieu of benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (Chapter 30). The specific statutory and regulatory provisions governing Chapter 33 benefits, to include payment and discontinuation, are found under 38 U.S.C. §§ 3301 to 3327 and 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.9500 to 21.9770. An overpayment is created when VA determines that a beneficiary or payee has received monetary benefits to which he or she is not entitled. See 38 U.S.C. § 5302 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 1.962 (2018). The issue of whether the underlying debt is valid is a threshold determination that must be made prior to a decision on a request for waiver of the indebtedness. See Schaper v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 430 (1991). A debtor may dispute the amount or existence of a debt, which is a right that may be exercised separately from a request for waiver or at the same time. See 38 C.F.R. § 1.911 (c)(1); see also VAOPGCPREC 6-98. Here, the Veteran is not specifically disputing the amount of the debt. Rather, she disputes the creation of the debt in the first place. In this regard, she asserts that two weeks prior to the end of her spring semester at New Horizons Computer Learning Center from January 12, 2017 to April 14, 2017, she had to stop attending school for medical reasons associated with being nine months pregnant. She explained she could no longer drive the 54 miles to and from school. In March 2017, VA received a Notice of Change in Student Status form showing that the Veteran had withdrawn from the 2017 spring term effective March 30, 2017. The overpayment involved in this appeal is a result of payments that VA made on behalf of the Veteran’s spring 2017 term following the March 30, 2017 date of withdrawal. Notwithstanding the above, the Veteran said that she did not withdraw for the term, but rather completed the term online. In this regard, she said that the course that she took was a virtual online course which can be taken anywhere and that she completed the last two weeks of this course from home. In support of this contention she submitted a Certificate of Completion dated April 13, 2017, which shows that she successfully completed a course entitled Microsoft SQL Server. Under these circumstances, the Board finds that clarification is required from the Veteran's school as to whether she actually completed her coursework for the January 12, 2017 to April 14, 2017, spring term and in what capacity (i.e. classroom and/or distance learning), or whether she withdrew from the school altogether on March 30, 2017. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request clarification from the pertinent college as to circumstances of the Veteran's coursework for the January 12, 2017 to April 14, 2017, spring term. That is, whether the Veteran actually withdrew from the school effective March 30, 2107, or whether she completed her course(s) and, if so, in what capacity, i.e., classroom and/or distance learning as defined by Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill). 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the action taken in the preceding paragraph, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and her representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Shawkey, Counsel 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.