Citation Nr: 25005666 Decision Date: 04/25/25 Archive Date: 04/25/25 DOCKET NO. 17-21 897 DATE: April 25, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to VA educational assistance benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB or Chapter 30) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran honorably served on active duty from January 1985 to January 1989. However, he does not meet the basic eligibility requirements for entitlement to VA educational assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 3011, 3201, 3222, 3223, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.7040, 21.7042, 21.7044, 21.7045. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran honorably served with the Navy from January 1985 to January 1989. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) sincerely thanks the Veteran for his honorable service to this nation. The Veteran has appealed a May 2016 decision letter by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Muskogee Regional Office (RO) denying entitlement to MGIB education benefits. A Board hearing was held in July 2024. A transcript of said hearing is of record. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, Public Law 78-346 (also known as the G.I. Bill of Rights or the World War II GI Bill), was originally established to provide services and benefits to the veterans of World War II. It was signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on June 22, 1944 and was the first federal program to award education benefits to veterans. This original GI Bill expired in 1956, but the term "GI Bill" is still used to refer to programs created to assist some military veterans. Subsequent programs included veterans of the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the GI Bill has since been expanded to all who have served in the Armed Forces. Since 1944, the GI Bill has undergone numerous versions since its inception, with the different versions all codified into distinct "chapters" that, together, form the overall statutory framework. Different chapters contain the distinct benefits programs available to veterans and servicemembers based on military service during different eras. In other words, different laws apply to Veterans depending on when the Veterans served. When one version of the GI Bill is, for lack of a better term, "replaced" with an updated new version that is codified in a new chapter, there are statutes and regulations enacted to ensure a smooth transition for individuals that fall in between the two versions. However, each chapter exists primarily as a standalone entity that contains individual, unique benefit schemes and eligibility requirements. See generally Carr v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 128, 129-130; CRS Report for Congress, A Brief History of Veterans' Education Benefits and Their Value (June 25, 2008). Put simply, all Veterans-from all eras-are not entitled to the exact same educational benefits. What educational benefits a Veteran may or may not be entitled to is generally determined by the era in which the Veteran served-and, thus, the statutory scheme that governs said era. Because the "GI Bill" has changed over these eras, Veterans who served in different eras will often be eligible for different educational benefits. As a procedural history of this case, the Veteran applied for MGIB education benefits in May 2016 with the intent to enter a program for a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree in August 2016. See May 2016 VA Form 22-1990. A May 2016 decision letter denied entitlement to MGIB benefits, and this appeal ensued. Confusingly, the May 2016 decision letter stated the Veteran's application for MGIB benefits was denied because the Veteran "did not have any money in [his] VEAP account on October 9, 1996," in addition to not meeting the requirements for any of the other three eligibility categories for MGIB. The decision letter did not elaborate further on the denial. The Board notes the Veteran's active duty service occurred during the timeframe of the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP or Chapter 32). Due to when the Veteran served, VEAP is the statutory scheme that governs what educational benefits the Veteran is entitled to. VEAP was an educational assistance program under Chapter 32 that was established specifically for veterans who entered active military service after December 31, 1976, and before July 1, 1985. See 38 U.S.C. § 3201. The program required eligible participants to enroll in the Chapter 32 educational assistance program at any time during service while on active duty before July 1, 1985. The program required eligible participants to contribute up to $2,700 of their active-duty pay, which was then matched by the government on a 2-for-1 basis. See 38 U.S.C. § 3222; 38 C.F.R. § 21.5052. Contributions to VEAP were refunded if the participant disenrolled from the program. Refunds were generally provided on the date of the participant's discharge or release from active duty. 38 U.S.C. § 3223. If a participant did not elect to disenroll upon discharge, nonvoluntary disenrollment from VEAP occurred when a veteran had not used all entitlement benefits within the 10-year period stated in 38 C.F.R. § 21.5041, and at the end of one year thereafter had not filed a claim for educational assistance allowance as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 21.5030(c). See 38 C.F.R. § 21.5060. The record reflects the Veteran-who entered service before July 1, 1985-enrolled in the VEAP program and met the eligibility requirements for entitlement to VEAP, including contributing a monthly deduction during active duty service. See DD Form 214; see also July 2024 Board Hr. Tr. at 6. The Veteran testified that he received his total contributions back after electing to not use VEAP benefits. See March 2017 notice of disagreement (NOD); July 2024 Board Hr. Tr. at 6. Although military personnel records do not reflect when the Veteran elected to not use VEAP benefits and receive a contribution refund, the Veteran testified that he elected to "pull those funds" as he "got ready to discharge." See July 2024 Board Hr. Tr. at 6-7. Thus, the evidence reflects the Veteran received his VEAP contributions at his release from active duty in January 1989. In other words, the Veteran voluntarily disenrolled from VEAP-the educational benefit program for which he was eligible based on his dates of service-upon his discharge and he was fully refunded the funds that he had contributed to said program. Completely separate from VEAP education benefits-which are codified in Chapter 32-are MGIB educational assistance benefits which are governed by 38 U.S.C. Chapter 30. To be clear, VEAP and MGIB are separate educational benefit programs that apply to different Veterans based on when said Veterans served. The MGIB program was enacted by Congress after the VEAP program, and there are four categories of eligibility. Category one is for those individuals who first entered active duty after June 30, 1985, and did not decline entrance into the MGIB program. Additionally, the individual must have completed the obligated period of continuous active duty service, which is at least three years or not less than 36 months and must have received an honorable discharge. 38 U.S.C. § 3011(a); 38 C.F.R. § 21.7042(a). Category two is for those individuals with remaining entitlement under the Vietnam Era GI Bill (38 U.S.C. Chapter 34), and who had certain dates of service. 38 C.F.R. § 21.7044. Category three is for those individuals who were involuntarily separated or separated under the Voluntary Separation Incentive or Special Separation Benefit program, specifically during the 1990s. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.7045(a)-(c). Here, the record reflects the Veteran first entered active duty in January 1985, prior to the enactment of the MGIB in July 1985, and was discharged in January 1989 with no other periods of active duty service. See DD Form 214. Thus, MGIB category one does not apply to the Veteran. The Veteran does not contend, and the record does not reflect he had entitlement under the Vietnam Era GI Bill or that he was involuntarily separated or separated under a separation benefit program. Id. Thus, MGIB categories two and three do not apply to the Veteran. In sum, he does not qualify for educational assistance under the first three categories for eligibility to MGIB benefits. Lastly, category four is for former VEAP participants who elected to convert to MGIB during the open window periods and for a small group of National Guard members who were given a brief opportunity to elect MGIB. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.7045(d). Regulations clearly state that a VEAP participant who wanted to enter into the MGIB program must have (1) been on active duty on October 9, 1996, (2) been a participant in the VEAP program on October 9, 1996, and (3) made an election to enter into the MGIB program before October 9, 1997. Id. In this Veteran's case, he does not qualify for MGIB eligibility under category four despite being a previous VEAP participant by contributing to the program. The Veteran was not on active duty on October 9, 1996. Further, even though the Veteran is not in the category of Veterans who were eligible to convert VEAP benefits to MGIB benefits, there is no record of the Veteran ever even attempting to convert from VEAP to MGIB. Overall, the Board finds the Veteran does not qualify for any of the four categories of eligibility for MGIB benefits. The Veteran contends that he was "always interested in obtaining educational assistance" but he was never notified of any eligibility to enroll in MGIB or other education benefit program. See March 2017 NOD; July 2024 Board Hr. Tr. at 7. For example, the Veteran stated he "was never informed of the MGIB" when he "enrolled in the VEAP program in bootcamp," nor was he informed of potential entitlement to MGIB when he withdrew his contributions from the VEAP program. See April 2017 VA Form 9. The Board notes that category four, above, had not yet been enacted during the Veteran's service, and a servicemember cannot be made aware of regulations and statutes that did not exist at the time. Additionally, this argument does not provide a basis for the Board to grant eligibility to MGIB as VA regulations are binding, regardless of whether a veteran has actual knowledge of what is in the regulations or what they entail. See Jernigan v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 220 (2012). Setting aside any argument about notice of the MGIB program, the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran simply was not eligible for MGIB benefits. Thus, notice of a program for which one is not even eligible is simply not relevant. The Veteran also stated that the laws are unfair and "places undue hardship upon the VEAP-era veterans," noting that anyone "who serves honorably in the Armed Forces should be given any and all benefits afforded to them under VA," including education benefits. See March 2017 NOD; see also July 2024 Board Hr. Tr. at 8, 14. The Board is certainly sympathetic to the Veteran's argument and can understand how it can seem "unfair" for Veterans of different eras to be eligible for different benefits. However, the Board is bound by the law, and this decision is dictated by the relevant statutes and regulations. Although the Veteran and his representative argued that the Board should not focus on the law and grant this appeal based on "what is best for the Veteran," the Board has no legal authority to consider the "fairness" of the laws which it is legally bound to apply. See July 2024 Board Hr. Tr. at 17-18. Simply put, the Board does not have the authority to grant equitable relief-i.e., relief based on a "fairness" analysis. Darrow v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 303 (1992). Even if the Board found the Veteran eligible for MGIB education benefits, which it does not, the delimiting date (expiration date) to use MGIB education benefits is 10 years from the date of a veteran's last discharge or release from a period of active duty. 38 C.F.R. § 21.7050. The same is true for VEAP education benefits. Thus, the Veteran, who separated from service on January 7, 1989, would have had until January 7, 1999 to use any potential benefits. The Veteran's current claim for benefits was received by VA in May 2016, well more than 10 years after his discharge from active duty. Thus, any potential entitlement to benefits under both VEAP and MGIB are now expired. In summation, the applicable law and regulations are clear-the Veteran's active-duty service from January 1985 to January 1989 does not provide eligibility to MGIB education benefits. Although the Board is certainly sympathetic to the Veteran's situation and is grateful for his honorable service to this country, it is bound by the applicable law and regulations and does not have authority to grant benefits on an equitable basis. 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 7104(c). There is no basis upon which to grant entitlement to MGIB benefits. Where the law, rather than the facts, is dispositive, there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Thus, the Veteran's appeal must be hereby DENIED. J.P. Norman Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Bona, J.F. 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.