Citation Nr: 22016501 Decision Date: 03/22/22 Archive Date: 03/22/22 DOCKET NO. 19-02 714 DATE: March 22, 2022 ORDER As the Veteran's request for an extension of the delimiting date for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code (known as the Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty (MGIB-AD)) was not timely filed, the claim of entitlement to Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from May 4, 1992, to May 3, 1996; it is neither claimed nor shown that he had additional active duty service after that date. 2. VA has found that the Veteran's basic period of eligibility for receiving Chapter 30 educational benefits ended on May 4, 2006. 3. The Veteran filed for an extension of his Chapter 30 delimiting date in September 2018. 4. It has not been shown that the Veteran was prevented from initiating or completing an educational program until September 2017, due to his own physical or mental disability, and good cause had not been shown for why the Veteran could not timely file his extension request. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the award of VA educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30 are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 3031; 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.1033, 21.7050, 21.7051. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 4, 1992, to May 3, 1996. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from a July 2018 determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma, informing the Veteran, inter alia, that he could not be approved for Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits because his eligibility to receive such benefits ended on May 4, 2006. The Veteran subsequently requested an extension of his delimiting date, which request was denied by the RO. In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to VA Educational Assistance Benefits Chapter 30 of Title 38, United States Code, sets forth provisions to allow for educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces after their separation from military service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3021. An individual may establish basic eligibility for educational assistance under Chapter 30 by showing that he or she first entered into active duty as a member of the armed forces after June 30, 1985, and served at least three years of continuous active duty if the obligated period of active duty was three years or more. 38 U.S.C. § 3011(a)(1)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 21.7042(a). Here, the Veteran had active military service from May 4, 1992, to May 3, 1996, which service satisfies the basic eligibility requirements set forth above. As such, the Veteran's eligibility to receive Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits is not at issue. Rather, the central issue in this appeal is whether an extension of the delimiting date is warranted. In this regard, the Board notes that, except under specified limited circumstances not applicable here, VA will not provide basic educational assistance to a veteran or service member beyond 10 years of the date of the veteran's last discharge or release from a period of active duty of 90 days or more of continuous service. 38 U.S.C. § 3031; 38 C.F.R. § 21.7050. As noted, the Veteran had active military service from May 4, 1992, to May 3, 1996. Therefore, the Veteran's delimiting date was determined to be May 4, 2006, (10 years after the Veteran's honorable discharge on May 3, 1996, for which he was given an honorable discharge). The record then shows that Veteran first filed an application for VA educational assistance benefits in July 2018. That same month, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) informed the Veteran that he could not be approved for educational assistance benefits under the MGIB program because his period of eligibility for use of such benefits ended on May 4, 2006. In October 2018, the Veteran filed a request for an extension of his eligibility period for use of his Chapter 30 benefits. In November 2018, the AOJ issued a statement of the case, wherein it found that the Veteran's period of eligibility for use of Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits ended on May 4, 2006, and that the Veteran's request for extension was untimely. Notably, requests for an extended period of eligibility under Chapter 30 must be filed by the later of the following dates: 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). An extension may also be granted when a claimant establishes good cause for an untimely request provided that claimant takes the required action concurrently with or before filing the request. 38 C.F.R. § 21.1033(e). Here, there is no question that the Veteran's request for an extension of his eligibility period for use of his Chapter 30 benefits was not filed within a year of his May 2006 delimiting date. The Board also concludes that the evidence does not establish that the Veteran's physical or mental disabilities prevented him from beginning or resuming a chosen program of education until September 2017, one year prior to receipt of his extension request. Indeed, when asked during his hearing whether he had any physical or mental disabilities that had prevented him from attending school, the Veteran responded that he "probably could have attended school", stating that had he been aware that he had only 10 years to use his benefits, he would have pushed to use them within the allotted time period. This does not suggest to the Board that the Veteran had a physical or mental disability that prevented him or her from beginning or resuming a chosen program of education, which disability ceased to exist on or after September 2017 such that the Board can find the Veteran's extension request timely. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.1033(c). The Board further finds that good cause has not been shown for why the Veteran could not take the required action during the original time period and could not have taken the required action sooner. Here, the only reason provided for why the Veteran's extension request was not timely filed was that he was unaware that he had only 10 years to use his benefits or of the time limits for filing an extension request. While the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's assertions in this regard, his lack of knowledge regarding the applicable regulations and time limits does not constitute good cause as VA is under no legal obligation to individually notify every potential claimant of his or her possible entitlement to VA benefits. Lyman v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 194 (1993); Hill v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 451 (1991). Accordingly, as the evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that the Veteran did not file a request for extension within the requisite period, the law does not permit an extension of the delimiting date under the facts of this case and the Veteran's request must therefore be denied. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.7051. Thus, a delimiting date later than May 4, 2006, is not warranted and the Veteran's claim for Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits must be denied as his period of eligibility for use of such benefits has expired. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 217050; 21.7051. Although the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's position, and commends the Veteran on his educational pursuits, the applicable law and regulations are clear that except in specific circumstances not met here, the Veteran's period of eligibility for use of Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits expired on May 4, 2006. The Board lacks the legal authority to award benefits outside the scope of the law, and has no authority to grant claims on an equitable basis. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 ; Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416, 425 (1994) ("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"). ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Neilson, 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.