13-00 305

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedSeptember 30, 2015
Docket13-00 305
StatusUnpublished

This text of 13-00 305 (13-00 305) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
13-00 305, (bva 2015).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1542414 Decision Date: 09/30/15 Archive Date: 10/05/15

DOCKET NO. 13-00 305A ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo, New York

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to basic eligibility for Post 9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) educational assistance benefits.

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. Edwards Andersen, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served in the Army National Guard from September 2006 to July 2009. During this time frame, he had active duty for training (ACDUTRA) service from September 2006 to March 2007.

The Board notes that the Veteran was denied eligibility for Chapter 33 benefits in a March 2011 decision. A notice of disagreement was received in April 2011. The Veteran was then erroneously informed that he was eligible for Chapter 33 benefits in an April 2011 decision. The RO notified the Veteran in a September 2011 decision that he was mistakenly granted entitlement to Chapter 33 benefits as a result of an administrative error and his eligibility was terminated. A notice of disagreement was received in September 2011; a statement of the case was issued in October 2012 and a VA Form 9 was received in January 2013.

In February 2015, the Board remanded this claim to schedule a hearing. The requested hearing was conducted in July 2015 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is associated with the claims file.

The Board notes that this appeal originally included entitlement to basic eligibility for Chapter 1606 educational assistance benefits; however, these benefits have been reinstated and, therefore, are no longer on appeal. See March 2015 letter to Veteran.

In addition to the paper claims file, there are additional documents in Virtual VA and the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) paperless claims processing system. Accordingly, any future consideration of this Veteran's case should take into consideration the existence of these electronic records.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran served in the Army National Guard from September 2006 to July 2009, with a period of ACDUTRA from September 2006 to March 2007.

2. The Veteran did not have any period of active duty service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The Veteran is not eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) educational assistance benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(2), (22)(A), (24)(B), 3002, 3301, 3311, 12103 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 21.9500, 21.9505, 21.9520 (2015).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

I. Duties to Notify and Assist

VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a). See also Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006).

The VCAA is not applicable where the outcome is controlled by the law, and the facts are not in dispute. Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet App 165, 178 (2001); Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227, 231-32 (2000).

In the instant case, the law and not the facts are controlling. In other words, even if all of the Veteran's contentions were accepted, he could still not prevail on his claim. Further, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that VCAA notification procedures do not apply in cases where the applicable chapter of Title 38, United States Code contains its own notice provisions. See Barger v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 132, 138 (2002) (VCAA notice was not required in case involving a waiver request). In the present case, specific VCAA notice was not required because education benefit claim notice is covered in 38 C.F.R. § 21.1031 (2015). See 38 C.F.R. § 21.9510 (2015).

As explained in the Federal Register, substantiating eligibility under one of the various educational assistance programs VA administers generally requires only proof of military service and the notice and assistance provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.1031, 21.1032 apply as opposed to those provisions for compensation and other VA claims. 72 Fed. Reg. 16,962 (Apr. 5, 2007). Basic requirements, however, are also substantially similar to those used in the compensation claims; VA must inform the claimant of any information and evidence not of record (1) that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will seek to provide; and (3) that the claimant is expected to provide. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103; Cf. Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 186 (2002).

For education benefits claims, VA is to provide forms and notify claimants of necessary information or evidence except when a claim cannot be substantiated because there is no legal basis for the claim or undisputed facts render the claimant ineligible for the claimed benefit. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.1031(b)(1).

Here, on the Veteran's application for VA benefits, he acknowledged that he had received information on VA education benefits via a pamphlet. In October 2012, the Veteran was sent a statement of the case with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 21.9520 that outline basic eligibility, a discussion of the facts of the claim, notification of the basis of the decision, and a summary of the evidence used to reach that decision.

Based upon the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran was fully advised of the evidence needed to substantiate his claim and that all relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of his appeal has been obtained. The evidence shows the Veteran knew what was needed to substantiate the claim, what evidence should provide and what evidence VA would undertake to obtain. The Board finds no prejudice in delayed notice and that no such issue has been raised. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 408-409 (2009) (the burden is on the Appellant to show that a notice error is harmful).

Regarding the duty to assist, there is no indication of outstanding records, and an examination is not required to decide this claim. Service department confirmation of the type and periods of service is in the file.

Further, during the July 2015 hearing, the undersigned Veterans Law Judge explained the elements of the claim, asked questions to obtain relevant information, and summarized the Veteran's arguments. The Veteran has not argued that VA failed to comply with the duties as set forth in 38 C.F.R. 3.103(c)(2), or identified any prejudice as a result of the hearing. VA has substantially complied with such duties, consistent with Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (2010).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Sanders
556 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Sanders v. Nicholson
487 F.3d 881 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Mayfield v. Nicholson
444 F.3d 1328 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Quartuccio v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 183 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
Barger v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 132 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
Larry A. Pelegrini v. Anthony J. Principi
18 Vet. App. 112 (Veterans Claims, 2004)
Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson
19 Vet. App. 473 (Veterans Claims, 2006)
Walter A. Bryant v. Eric K. Shinseki
23 Vet. App. 488 (Veterans Claims, 2010)
Smith v. Gober
14 Vet. App. 227 (Veterans Claims, 2000)
Taylor v. West
11 Vet. App. 436 (Veterans Claims, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13-00 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/13-00-305-bva-2015.