Thi s version contains an errata date d 3Apr00 -e
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 98-734
G EORGE R. B RE EDEN , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R
. S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided Ma

rch 17, 2000 )

Ge or ge R. Br e e de n, pr o s e . Leigh A. Bradley, Ge ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , A ssi sta nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Jacque line M. Sims , Acting Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Er ic a M . D or nb ur g , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the plea ding f

or the a ppellee.
Be fore KRAMER, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : T he pr o s e a pp e lla nt, ve te ra

n Geo rge R. B re e de n, a pp e a ls a Dec ember

22, 1997, Boa

rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea l s (B VA o r B oard) decision that denie d chapte r 30 educational assistance be nefits for e nrollment in a colleg e duringthe per iod of Aug ust 1995 to May 1996. Record ( R.) at 2. The appellant has filed an informal brief a nd a re ply , and the Sec reta ry has filed a motion for sing le-judg e af firmanc e. This appe al i s t i m ely , and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a). For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Secre tary ' s motion i n part, g rant it in part, and a ffirm the B VA dec ision.

I. Bac kgr ound2

The ve tera

n had ac tive service in the U.S. Army from F ebrua

ry 1986 to Febr

uary 1988. R. at 16. I n Aug ust 1988, he submitted to a Depa rtment of Veter ans Affa irs (VA) reg ional office (RO) an application for educ ation benef its. The nex t month, the VARO notified him by letter that he wa s
e lig ibl e fo r 3 6 mont

hs of " c re dit e d [e du c a tio na l a ssi sta nc e a llo wa

nc e ] en tit le me nt b a se d o n le ng th of cr editable se rvice ", a

nd that he had "until Fe bruar y 12, 1998[,] to use [hi s] entitlement." R. at 21. The RO then r ece ived a VA Form 22-1999 E nrollment Certification (" Enrollment Certification F or m" ) s ho wi ngthat th e ve te ra n h a d e nr oll e d in

a c oll e g e fu ll t ime fo r t

he pe ri od of Se pte mbe r 6 to Dec ember 20, 1988. R. at 26. I n October 1988, the R O awarde d the educ ation benef its applied for and notified the ve tera

n that, as of De cembe r 1988, his "r emaining entitlement [would] be 32 month(s) and 15 da

y (s) if use d befor e [his] delimiting date of 02-12-98." R. at 29. I n November

1988, the RO rec eived a second Enrollment Certification Form showing that the veter an wa s enrolled f ull tim e for

the period of J anuar

y 18 to Ma

y 16, 1989. R. at 36-37. The RO ag ain awa

rded the education benefits soug ht and no t ified the ve tera n that his "re maining entitlement would be 27 months and 19 day s, if used bef ore Fe bruar

y 1998." Supplementa l (Suppl.) R. at 2-3. Simil ar e ducation-be nefits awa rds wer e gra

nted by the R O as to full-ti me enr ollment from Augu s t 2 1 , 1 9 8 9 , to May 30, 1990 (leaving the veter an with 18 months and 9 day s of entitlement

rema ining) (R. at 49), and from J une 18 to July 27 and Aug ust 20 to D ece mber 21, 1990 (l eaving the veter an with 11 months and 18 day s of entitlement re maining) (R. at 49). The RO was then inf or me d th a t th e ve te ra

n h a d w ith dr awn

fr om c la sse s o n Se pte mber 7, 19 90 (R . at 10 0) , a nd his

rema ining time wa s subsequentl y am en d ed ac cording ly , so that he wa s determined to have 15 months and 11 day s of entitlement re maining ( Suppl. R . at 21). In J une 1994, the a pp el l ant was

awa rd e d e du c a tio n b e ne fi ts f

or the pe ri od

of Ma y 31 to A ugus t 10 , 1 99 4 (R. at 12 7), lea vin g him

rema ining e ntitlement of 13 months and 1 day (R. at 22). I nAu gu s t1 9 9 4 , t h e R O r ec ei v edan E n r o l l m en tC er t i fi ca t i o nFo rm fo r t h e v et er an 's enrollment in a three-hour corr espondenc e course for the per iod of September 13, 1993, to June 13, 1994. R. at 140. I n September 1994, the RO issued a check for retroactive tuiti on in the amount of $114.21. R. at 238. The RO then re ceive d an Enrollment Certific ation For m that indicated that the veter an had be en enr olled full time during the period of Aug ust 23 to Dece mber 14, 1994. R. at 139.3

A J anuar y 1995 audit of the veter an' s acc ount indicated that in 1994 he ha d been e nrolled in school for a total of 7 months full ti me and 2 months and 5 da y s at 1⁄4 time. R. at 166. I n Apr il 1 99 5, the RO re c e ive d a n E nr oll me nt C e rt if

icati on Form i nd ic a tin g fu ll- tim e enrollment fr om J uly

11 to Aug ust 17, 1995. R. at 168. I n May 1995, the RO notified the vete ran that his "[c]hapter 30 entitlement [was] . . . ex hausted e ffe ctive Jul y 8, 1995", because he ha d "r ece ived the maximum benef it a llowed by law." R. at 210-11. Followingrec eipt of an Enr ollment Certification Form re g ardingthe veteran' s full-time enrollment for the period of Aug ust 28, 1995, to May 8, 1996 (R. at 173), the RO notified him that educ ational as s i s t an ce was denie d for that pe ri od (R . at 17 5) . In De c e mbe r 1 99 5, a t th e ve te ra n' s r e qu e st, the RO pr ov ide d a n a ud it o f h is

e du c a tio n- be ne fi ts util iza tio n th a t in dic a te d th e a bo ve de sc ri be d ch arg e s to his e nti tle me nt, wi th h is final enr ollment period li sted as Jul y 18 to Aug ust 17, 1995, as to which per iod his entitl ement had been " [e] x tended . . . to end of term" . R. at 224. The veter an timely appea led to the Boa rd. R. at 225, 241. I n th e De c e mbe r 1 99 7, B VAde c isi on he re on a pp e a l, the B oa

rd de nie d th e ve te ra

n' s c la im for e ducational a ssistance be nefits for e nrollment from August 28, 1 9 9 5 , t o M ay 8, 1996, on the g round that he ha d been pa id "[c]hapter 30 e ducational a ssistance be nefits . . . for pe riods of enrollment in excess of 36 months up throug h Aug ust 17, 1995." R. at 2. On J anuar

y 5, 2000, afte r re viewing the appe llant's ple ading s, the Court noted that it was unable to " locate in his informa l brief, his 11-pa g e re ply , or in a ny documents conta ined in the re cord on appea l, where he has describe d any specific err or(s) in calc ulation(s) by the BVA or the [ ]R O or in the De c e mbe r 11 , 19 95 , VA a ud it [(R. a t 22 4) ] o r any oth e r do cum ent ." Br eede n v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 250, 250 ( 2000). Noting that "[i]t is not the task of the Court to sear ch the r ecor d to try to u nc ov e r e rr or s not i de nti fi e d b y the a pp e lla nt" , w e or de re d th e a

pp e lla nt t o f ile wi thi n 3 0 d a y s a
supp lem ent al mem oran du m t hatid ent if ied "any su ch error s w it h s peci fi cit y ." Ibid. The a ppellant has fa iled to respond.

II. Ana lys is Under 38 U.S.C. § 3011(a)(1) (A)( i), whi ch s et s forth the e ligibility require ments for entitlement to chapter

30 basic educational assistance, "ea ch indi vidual

. . . who .

. . [,] afte r J une 30,4

1985, first bec omes a member of the Armed For ces or first enter s on active duty as a me mber of the Armed F orce s and .

. . wh o . . . serve s at least two y ear s of continuous ac tive duty in the Armed Forces

. . . i s en ti tl ed t o b asi c edu cat io nal ass is tan ce." Se e als o 38 C.F.R. §§ 2 1

. 7 0 4 0 , 2 1

. 7 042 (1999) ( VA re g ulations conce rning basic eligibility for chapter 30 educational assistance benef its). "[E]ach individual entitled to basic educ ational assistance under se ction 3011 . . . is entitled to 36

mon ths of

e du c a tio na l a ssi sta

nc e be ne fi ts un de r .
. . c ha pte r [3 0] ( or

the e qu iva le nt t

he re of in p a rt

tim e e du c a tio na l a ssi sta

nc e )" . 3 8 U. S.C. § 3 01 3( a )( 1) ; se e als o 38 C.F.R. § 21.7072(a) (1999). The

c a lc ulatio n o f th e amount of e du c a tio n b e ne fi ts u se d b y a ve te ra n w ho is e nr oll e d " on

a fu ll t ime bas is " is to b e c ha

rg e d " [o]n the ba sis of

tot a l e la ps e d ti me (o ne da

y fo r e a c h d ay

of purs ui t) ". 38 C.F.R. § 21.7076(b)( 1)(i) ( 1999). In other wor ds, the 36 months for which a veter an is entitled to educational assistance be nefits is to be reduc ed one day fo r eac h day of full-time cour se work take n b y the ve te ra

n. Th e re g ulatio n als o indi c a te s tha t a vet e ra n w ho is e nr oll e d o n a

le ss- tha n- fu lltim e ba sis wi l l b e c h ar g e d " [o ]n t h e b a s i s o f

a p r o p o rt i o n a t e r a t e o f

e l a p s e d t i m e "

. 3 8 C

. F

. R. § 21.7076(b)( 1)(ii). I n this case, the ve tera

n' s elig ibilit y

for a total of 36 months of education benefits pursuant to chapter 30 is not in di spute. See R. at 3 (B VA dec ision noti ng that the "ve tera n acknow ledg es that he is entit l ed t o n o m o re than 36 months of chapter 30 . . . benef

its"). Similarly , the appe llant expli citly does not dispute the ac cura cy of the B oard' s calc ulation of the num ber of months (i.e., 36) of e du c a tio n b e ne fi ts that he ha s a lr e a dy us e d. Ap pe lla

nt' s B r. a t 2 (" I a m quit e sure that a pp ro pr ia te regulatio n w a s a

pp lie d a s r e g ard s [si c ] am ount o f e nti tle me nt a wa rd e d [il le g ibl e ;] th e pr ob le m is I didn't ge t the amount of m oney that that entitlement is/was worth" ); Reply at 1 (a rg uing that BVA

err ed in finding that "be nefits were paid equal to entitlement char g ed for 36 months"). The Court will thus not revie w VA' s conclusion that the veter an has been enrolled for over 36 months, which exceeds t h e am o unt of educ ation benef its to which he was e ntitled under cha pter 30. See G reen ( Do ris ) v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 111, 114 ( 1997). The a ppellant ar g ues that he is entitled to additional educ ational as s istance a llowance beca use, he a sserts, the amount of m oney expended by VA in support of hi s 36 months of education was less than it should have been. He asserts t hat for the period of September 13, 1993, to May 30, 1994, he wa s char g ed fo r 2 m o nths and 5 day s but rece ived a c heck f or only $114.21, which, he5

a sse rt s, is l e ss t

ha n w hat he sh ou ld h a ve re c e ive d f or 2 mo nth s and

5 d ay s o f e du c a tio n b e ne fi ts. R e p l y a t9- 10 ; se e als o R. at 14 0 ( Enro llm e nt C e rt if ic a tio n F or

m sh ow inge nr oll me nt i n
corr espondenc e cour se duringabove pe riod); R. at 166 (De cembe r 19 9 5 VA au dit indicating pa y me nt a mou nt of $1 14 .2 1 for pe ri od

of Se pte mbe r 1 3, 19 93 , to Ma y 30 , 1 99 4, and

c ha rg inghis entitlement for 2 months and 5 day s worth of e ntitlement used during that period). T he Secr etar y responds that " the pertinent regulations and code clearly and unambig uously

provide that c alculation of entitlement is not based on the va lue of the pa y ments but ex clusively

on t h e d ay s and months utiliz ed by

[t he re cipient] in pursuit of his education." Motion at 9. "The p rop er i nt erpr eta ti on of a s tat ut e is to be m ade b y th e Co urt de nov o. " Tril le s v . W est ,

_ _ Ve t

. A p p
.

_

_ , _

_ , No

. 9 7 -1 9 2 , s l i p o p
. at 1 0 (F eb

. 1 5 , 2 0 0 0 ) ( en b an c) (c i t i n g Bu tts v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 532, 539 ( 1993) (en banc) ). "T he starting point in interpre ting a statute is e x amining the lan guage it sel f, f

or 'if th e in ten t of Con gress is cle ar, th at is th e endof t he m att er.'" Ibid. (quoting Cac ati an v . W

est , 1 2 Ve t

. Ap p
. 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 (1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Ga rd ne r v. B ro wn , 5 F.3d 1456 ( Fe d. Cir. 1993), a ff 'd , 513 U.S. 115 (1994))) . The Sec reta ry is corre ct that 38 U.S.C. § 3 0 1 3 , entitled,

" Duration of b asic educational assis tance ", e x plicitly provides only for "36 months of e ducational assistance benef

its". 38 U.S.C. § 3013(a) (1). The next two conse cutive statutory sections conc ern t h e c al cu l at i o no f t h e d o l l ar am o u n t s t o b e p ro v i d ed b y t h e S ec re t ary o v er t h e co u rs e o f t h e v et er an 's use of the 36 months of e ducational a ss i s tance benef its. 38 U.S.C . §§ 3014, 3015. The statutory provisions in 38 U.S.C . § 3 1 0 5 (a )( 1 ) reg ardingthe pay ment of amounts of " basic e ducational assistance allowanc e" , howeve r, in no way appea r t o entitle a veteran to a

particula r total monetary

a llo tme nt. I n f

a c t, s e c tio n 3 01 5 p ro vid e s: (a ) T he a mou

nt o f p ay me nt o f e du c a tio na l a ssi sta nc e un der this c ha

pte r i s subject to section 3032 of this title. Ex cept as otherw ise provided in this section, a basic e ducational a ssistance a llowance under this subcha pter shall be pa id-- (1 ) at the mon thl y ra

te of $5 28 (a s in c re a se d f

ro m ti me to t ime under subse ction (g )) f

or an a pproved pr og ram of e ducation pursue d on a full-time basis; or (2) at an appr opriately re d uced r ate, a s determined unde r regulations which the Secr etar y shall pres cr i b e, for

an appr oved prog ram of e ducation pursue d on less than a f ull-time basis. 38 U.S.C. § 3015(a)(1) , (2). The re is no indication in the s t atute that the amount of educational assistance allowan ce

set forth in section 3015 that is actua lly paid i s deter minative of the durati on6

of the veteran' s educa

tion-benef

its entitlement, which is the subject of a n entirely separ ate statutory provision (section 3013). The law see ms to be clea r, then, that the amounts to be paid to a vete ran over the course of his use of his 36 months of education be nefits do not provide a basis for a

n awa rd

o f b e n ef i t s fo r a n y

p er i o d o f t i m e b ey o n d

t h e 3 6 m o n t h s
. He n ce , t h e C o u rt wi l l af fi rm t h e B VA 's decision that the veter an is not e ntitled to the pay ment of an e ducational a ssistance a llowance for a ny period of time a fter his 36 months of educ ation-bene fits eligibility had expired. Finally , as to the appellant' s assertion that he is e ntitled to $716.55 due to a miscalculation of t he amount of educational assist ance allowanc e due him based on his enrollment from September 13, 1993, to J une 13, 1994, the Court notes that the a ppellant conc edes that "the f act that I was
e nr oll e d in

thr e e [-]h our c or

re sp on de nc e c ours e tr a ini ngis tru e " . Re ply a t 2; but see Reply

at 2-3 (indicating that there is no evidence of re cord pr oving that he had bee n enrolled in a corr espondenc e
course as opposed to a nonc orre spondence course ). He then states: " What looks to be missing is law stating howa cor

responde nce c ourse is to be pa id and how it ' s to be cha rg ed to/ag ainst entitlement." Re ply a t 11 . T he Se c re tary

state s ( Mo tio n at 9) th at pa y me nt f or c or re sp on de nc e c ours e s is controlled by

38 U.S.C. § 3032, which provides, inter a lia: The amount of the educational a ssistance allowanc e pay able under this cha pter to an individual who enters into an a g ree ment to pursu e, an d i s p ursuing , a prog ram of education e

xc lusiv e ly

by corr espondenc e is an amount equal to 5 5 perc ent of the e sta bli sh e d c ha

rg e wh ic h th e ins tit

uti on re qu ir e s n on ve te ra

ns to p a y fo r t he c ours e or c ours e s p ur su e d b y

su c h in div idu a l. 38 U.S.C. § 3032(d)(1)( A) (e mphasis added) . Be cause this veter an' s "pr og ram of e ducation" does not appea r to have been c onducted " e xc lusiv e ly " by

corr espondenc e cour se, section 3032(d)( 1)(A) would not appea

r to be applicable. Howeve r, as noted above, se ction 3015(a) (2) doe s allow for the pay ment of educ ational assistance allowanc e "at an a ppropriate ly

reduc ed rate, as de termined unde r regulations which the S ecr etar y shall presc ribe, for an approved progr am of education pursued on le ss t ha n a fu ll- tim e ba sis ." 38 U. S.C. § 301 5( a )( 1) , (2) . The imp le me nti ngVAre g ulatio n p ro vid e s: (f) Payme nt for c o r r espondence c ourses. The amount of pay ment due a veter an or se rvice member w ho is pursuing a co rrespondence course or the corr espondenc e portion of a corr espondenc e-r esidenc e cour se is 55 perc ent of the established cha

rg e which the educational insti tution requires nonve tera ns to pay for the lessons that the vete ran or s er v i ce member ha s had complete d and ser viced a nd for whic h pay

ment is due.7

38 C.F .R. § 2 1. 71 39 (f

) ( 19 99 ); se e als o 38 C.F.R. § 21.7020(b)( 35) (de fining "e stablished char g e" as the lesse r of: " (i) The char g e for the cor responde nce c ourse . . . det er m i n ed o n t h e basis of the low e st e xten de d ti me pa

y me nt p lan o ff

e re d b y the e du c a tio na l in sti tut ion

. . . or (i i) Th e a c tua l c os t to the

. . . v et er an." ). In this case, the E nrollment Certification F orm submitted for the

corr espondenc e cour se i n d ic a te d th a t Texas Tech Unive rsity

char g ed the ve tera

n "$120.00" in tuiti on for the c orre spondence course
. R. at 140. Although it is not clea r whether or not that char g e is the

" e sta bli sh e d c ha

rg e wh ic h th e e du cat iona l in sti tut ion re qu ir e s n on ve te ra

ns to p ay " , 3 8 C. F .R. §§ 21.7020(b)( 35), 21.7139(f ), it is c l ea r to the Court that the che ck paid by VA to the vete ran ($114.21) c losely

approximates the $120.00 char g e li sted on the Enrollm ent C ertification Form, and that the veter an' s claim for " $716.55" ( Reply at 11) ha s no basis in law. Henc e, that claim m ust be denied a s lacking leg al merit. See Sa bo nis v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 426, 429- 30 (1994) ( claim denied for lac k of leg al merit or lac k of entitlement). Th e Court is una

ble to re vie w any c la im by the a pp e lla nt t hat V A h a s n ot m a de a

pp ro pr ia te char g es to his overa ll entitlement to chapter 30 e ducation bene fits beca use t he appe llant has failed to respond to the Court' s J anuar y 2000 order that he file a supplemental memorandum that "ide ntifies any su ch error s w it h s peci fi cit y ." Breede n , 13 Vet.App. at 250.

III. Conclusi on Up on c on sid e rati o n

o f t h e fo re g oin g ana ly sis , th e re c or d o n a pp e a l, a nd the pa rt ie s' ple a din g s, the Court ho lds that th e a

pp e lla nt h a s n ot d e mon str ate d th at the B VAc omm itt e d e rr or -- in i ts finding s of fa ct, conc lusions of la w, p ro cedural proc esses, a rticulation of re asons or ba ses, or consideration of the benef it-of-the- doubt r

ule -- that would war

rant reve rsal or rem an d u nder 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 3011, 3013-3015, 5107(a) , 7104(a) or (d) (1), or 7261 or 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.7040

or 21 .7 04 2. Th e Se c re tary ' s moti on is den ie d to the e xten t th a t it so ug ht a ff

ir manc e by a sin g le judge , and the Court af

firms the De cembe r 22, 1997, B VA dec ision. AFF I RMED.