Entitlement to additional VA educational assistance benefits under Chapter 33, Title 38, United States Code (known as Chapter 33 or the Post-9/11 GI Bill), due to the attempted revocation of transferred benefits, is…

Citation Nr: 26001427 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 18-15 074 DATE: January 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to additional VA educational assistance benefits under Chapter 33, Title 38, United States Code (known as Chapter 33 or the Post-9/11 GI Bill), due to the attempted revocation of transferred benefits, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran used 13 months and 24 days of Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement. 2. In January 2012, the Veteran was approved to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement to T.G., his spouse. 3. The Veteran originally transferred 22 months of benefits to T.G.; T.G. used 18 months and 27 days of transferred entitlement. 4. In November 2014, the Veteran attempted to revoke 4 months of entitlement; the Veteran was informed that T.J. had already used 18 months and 27 days of transferred entitlement. 5. In November 2017, the Veteran sought to change the number of months transferred to T.G., this time from 18 to 14 months; however, because the Veteran's spouse had already used the entirety of her transferred entitlement, there was no entitlement remaining which could be revoked by the Veteran. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Veteran has no legal entitlement to additional VA educational assistance benefits under Chapter 33. 38 U.S.C. § 3312; 3319; 3327; 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.9520, 21.9550. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran entered onto active duty in the United States Air Force in November 2005; it is unclear from the record whether the Veteran remains on active duty or has separated from service. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from a January 2018 determination by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that VA was "unable to reduce the Transfer of Entitlement (TOE) [the Veteran] requested, because dependent [T.G.] has already exhausted her entitlement." The Veteran disagreed with that decision, arguing that he was informed, prior to enrolling in school, that his spouse had 4 months of transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits remaining, which months were available for the Veteran to transfer back to himself. In February 2018, the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) in which it was determined that the Veteran's spouse had exhausted her transferred 18 months of Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement, which prevented the Veteran from making any changes to the transfer of entitlement, to include revoking any transferred entitlement. The Veteran subsequently perfected an appeal to the Board. Notably, on his VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeal, the Veteran indicated his desire for a Board videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. Via letter dated in January 2024, the Veteran was notified that his requested hearing had been scheduled for May 14, 2024. The Veteran did not report for his scheduled hearing; the Board notes, however, that the hearing notification letter was returned as undeliverable. Upon review of the record, the Board discovered that the Veteran had previously provided a new address. In August 2024, the Board sent to the Veteran a letter at the newly discovered address reminding the Veteran that he had requested a hearing in connection with his appeal, and informing him of his different hearing options, to include submitting a written statement instead of having a hearing. The Veteran was instructed to respond to the Board's letter within 30 days, and was informed that if a response was not received, the Board would assume that the Veteran no longer desired to have a Board hearing. In October 2024, the August 2024 letter was similarly returned as undeliverable. The Board notes that veterans generally must keep VA apprised of their whereabouts. If they do not do so, then there is no burden on the part of VA to "turn up heaven and earth to find [them]." See Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262, 265 (1993); see also Thompson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 169, 175 (1995) (finding VA may rely on the "last known address" shown of record and burden is on appellant to keep VA apprised of his or her whereabouts). As the August 2024 letter was sent to the Veteran's last known address at the time, and VA has received no confirmation of the Veteran having a different address, the Board finds that additional efforts to confirm whether the Veteran still desires a Board hearing would be futile. Accordingly, the Board will proceed as though the request for a hearing in this case has been withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.603(d). Additional Entitlement to Chapter 33 Educational Assistance Benefits A review of the record shows that the Veteran himself was found entitled to benefits for an approved program of education or training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Specifically, the Veteran was deemed entitled to 36 months full-time benefits, which benefits were payable at the 100 percent rate. The Veteran then utilized Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to attend an undergraduate program of study at American Military University from May 2010 to September 2011. It appears that the Veteran used 13 months and 24 days of entitlement during this time. Then, in January 2012, the Veteran was approved to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement to T.G., his spouse. The Veteran originally transferred 22 months of entitlement, and in June 2012, T.G. began a program of education at Angelo State University. Records show that from June 2012 to May 2014, T.G. used 18 months and 27 days of entitlement. In November 2014, the Veteran sought to change the number of months transferred to T.G. from 22 to 18. Via letter dated November 24, 2014, the Veteran was informed that although he had tried to reduce the number of months transferred to T.G. from 22 to 18, she had already used 18 months and 27 days of entitlement. The RO then certified that the Veteran had 3 months and 8 days of full time benefits remaining. (This Board notes that the remaining entitlement corresponds to the number of months and days returned to him from T.G., in addition to the days remaining prior to his transfer of 22 months of entitlement.) In November 2017, the Veteran sought to further reduce the number of months transferred to T.G. to 14. In response, in January 2018, the RO informed the Veteran that VA was unable to reduce T.G.'s transferred entitlement to 14 months because she had already used 18 months and 27 days of entitlement. Notably, under governing law, an eligible individual is entitled to a maximum of 36 months of educational assistance (or its equivalent in part-time educational assistance) under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. See 38 C.F.R. § 21.9550. Additionally, VA law provides a limit on training under two or more programs. Specifically, the aggregate period for which any person may receive assistance under two or more of the following laws may not exceed 48 months (or the part-time equivalent): (1) Part VII or VIII, Veterans Regulations numbered 1(a), as amended; (2) Title II of the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952; (3) The War Orphans' Educational Assistance Act of 1956; (4) 38 U.S.C. chapters 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; (5) 10 U.S.C. chapters 106a, 1606, and 1607; (6) Section 903 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981; (7) The Hostage Relief Act of 1980; and (8) The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a); 38 C.F.R. § 21.4020(a). Further, the law provides that an individual who is entitled to educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 33 based on his or her own active duty service, and who is approved by a service department to transfer entitlement, may transfer up to a total of 36 months of his entitlement to a dependent (or among dependents). 38 U.S.C. § 3319; 38 C.F.R. § 21.9570. Regarding transferred benefits, the law provides that a "transferor may revoke any unused portion of transferred entitlement at any time by submitting a written notice to both the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of the military department concerned that initially approved the transfer of entitlement." 38 C.F.R. § 21.9570(f). When a transferor revokes a transfer of entitlement, any unused months may be used by the transferor, but the number of months used by a transferee count against the transferor's total entitlement. In the instant case, the RO correctly informed the Veteran that he could not further reduce the number of months of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits transferred to T.G. from 18 to 14. This is so because T.G. had used 18 months and 27 days of transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement. Although a transferor may revoke transferred entitlement, revocation is limited to "any unused portion of transferred entitlement". 38 C.F.R. § 21.9570(f). Thus, because the Veteran's spouse had already used the entirety of her transferred entitlement at the time that the Veteran sought to further reduce the amount of entitlement transferred, there was no entitlement remaining which could be revoked by the Veteran. Id. Accordingly, entitlement to additional VA educational assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill due to the attempted revocation of transferred benefits must be denied. In denying the claim on appeal, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's argument that he was informed that T.G. had 4 months of benefits remaining that could be returned to him for his own use if he revoked her entitlement to such. The Board apologizes for any misinformation that the Veteran may have received from a VA employee concerning his ability to revoke 4 months of transferred benefits. Unfortunately, however, the statutory and regularity authority is clear regarding the benefits payable under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, to include under the Transfer of Entitlement provisions, and misinformation from a VA employee does not warrant the grant of benefits where they are not authorized. See Owings v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 17, 23 (1995) (where VA misinforms a veteran regarding eligibility for benefits, the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot be used to grant monetary benefits not authorized by statute), aff'd 86 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). The Board also points out that it appears that the Veteran may in fact have remaining entitlement under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Indeed, when the Veteran reduced the number of months transferred to T.G. from 22 to 18 in November 2014, the Veteran was informed that he had 3 months and 8 days of full time benefits remaining. It is unclear from the record currently before the Board whether the Veteran then exhausted this remaining entitlement, or whether such entitlement remains. The Board also points out that although the Veteran reported in his 2018 NOD that he "called before starting classes in November", the record fails to contain any application for VA Education benefits dated in or around November 2017, or any enrollment certification or other communication from an educational institution that can be considered a claim for benefits for training pursued beginning in November 2017. Thus, whether Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits are payable for such training is beyond the scope of the current appeal. The Veteran, however, is encouraged to inquire with the RO as to the status of any such claim if he believes one exists, and should ask the RO whether the 3 months and 8 days of entitlement that existed in November 2014 may be utilized for training that began in November 2017. Lastly, for the Veteran's own benefit, the Board points out that there have been recent changes in the law that may afford him an additional 12 months of VA educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code (known as the Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty (MGIB-AD)). Specifically, in Rudisill v. McDonough, 601 U.S. 294 (2024), the Supreme Court of the United States held that, when veterans have separate periods of qualifying service entitling them to VA educational assistance benefits under both the MGIB-AD and Post-9/11 GI Bill programs, they can use those benefits, in any order, up to the statutory 48-month cap without having to first relinquish or exhaust their entitlement under either program. Subsequently, in Perkins v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 304 (2025), the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (Court) held that a veteran may be entitled to benefits under both the MGIB-AD and Post-9/11 GI Bill programs based on a single period of service, where the duration of that service meets the requirements of both programs without counting any of one's service time towards both benefits. However, the use of both benefits is subject to the 48-month aggregate cap set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 3695. The Court also held, in essence, that any election to relinquish eligibility under the MGIB-AD in favor of receiving benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill was void where veterans had separate entitlements. As noted above, the Veteran's complete service dates are not of record. However, based on the evidence available for review by the Board, the Board believes that the Court's holding in Perkin, supra, may apply to him and afford him an additional 12 months of VA educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30. Should the Veteran have desire to pursue additional education, the Veteran should request a review of his VA Education benefits to determine how the above changes in law might apply to him. K. Conner 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.