U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

61–757 2011

UPDATE OF THE POST-9/11 GI BILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

Serial No. 111–99 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

GLENN C. NYE, Virginia 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

September 16, 2010 

Page 

Update of the Post-9/11 GI Bill .............................................................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin .............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin .................................. 44 

Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member ............................................. 2 

Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman ............................................. 44 

Hon. Walt Minnick .................................................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement of Congressman Minnick ............................................... 45 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Defense, Captain Mark Krause, USN (Ret.), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Program Manager, Space and Naval War Systems 

Center Atlantic, Department of the Navy .......................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of Captain Krause .......................................................... 70 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education 

Service, Veterans Benefits Administration ........................................................ 29 

Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson .................................................................. 71 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Alan G. Merten, 

Ph.D., President, George Mason University ...................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of Dr. Merten .................................................................. 50 

American Legion, Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of Mr. Madden ................................................................ 60 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Tim Embree, Legislative Associate ....................................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement Mr. Embree ..................................................................... 63 

National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators, Faith 

DesLauriers, Legislative Director ....................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of DesLauriers ................................................................ 46 

Veterans of Modern Warfare, Donald D. Overton, Jr., Executive Director ........ 13 

Prepared statement of Mr. Overton ................................................................ 56 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, James D. Wear, Assistant 

Director, National Veterans Service ................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of Mr. Wear .................................................................... 58 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Disabled American Veterans, John L. Wilson, Assistant National Legislative 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 78 

Flink, Judith, Executive Director, University Student Financial Services, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL, statement ...................................................... 80 

National Association of State Approving Agencies, William D. Stephens, 

President, statement ............................................................................................ 86 

Student Veterans of America, statement ............................................................... 87 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Post-Hearing Follow-up Letter: 

Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion, to Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

letter dated October 19, 2010 .......................................................................... 90 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Faith 

DesLauriers, Legislative Director, National Association of Veterans’ 

Program Administrators, letter dated September 20, 2010, and response letter dated October 13, 2010 ....................................................... 90 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Alan Merten, 

President, George Mason University, American Association of State 

Colleges and Universities, letter dated September 20, 2010, and response from Edward Elmendorf, Senior Vice President, Government 

Relations and Policy Analysis, American Association of State Colleges 

and Universities, letter dated November 1, 2010 ................................... 92 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Donald O. 

Overton, Jr., Executive Director, Veterans of Modern Warfare, letter 

September 20, 2010, and Mr. Overton’s responses, dated November 

1, 2010 ........................................................................................................ 96 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to James D. 

Wear, Assistant Director for Veterans Benefits Policy, National Veterans Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, letter 

dated September 20, 2010, and Mr. Wear’s responses, dated November 1, 2010 ................................................................................................. 97 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic Commission, American 

Legion, letter dated September 20, 2010, and response letter dated 

November 1, 2010 ...................................................................................... 99 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Mark Krause, 

Department of Veterans Affairs Program Manager, Space and Naval 

Warfare System Center Atlantic, Department of the Navy, U.S. Department of Defense, letter dated September 20, 2010, and DoD’s 

responses .................................................................................................... 101 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Keith Wilson, 

Director, Education Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated September 20, 2010, 

and VA responses ...................................................................................... 102 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

UPDATE OF THE POST–9/11 GI BILL 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:06 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth 

Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Minnick, Teague, and Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economy Opportunity Oversight Hearing on the Post-9/11 GI Bill will come to 

order. 

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and their written statements be made part of the record. 

Hearing no objection so ordered. 

I would also like to state the fact that the Disabled American 

Veterans, the University of Illinois, and the Student Veterans of 

America have asked to submit written testimony for the record. If 

there is no objection I ask for unanimous consent that their statements be entered for the record. 

Hearing no objection so ordered. 

During the 111th Congress, we successfully passed the Post-9/11 

GI Bill to ensure that today’s veterans are afforded equitable benefits similar to those afforded to veterans who served during World 

War II. 

Furthermore, with the leadership of Representative Chet Edwards of Texas, we successfully passed the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to provide education benefits to 

the dependents of the men and women who passed away due to injuries sustained in support of missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

While these legislative accomplishments are significant, we must 

continue to provide the needed oversight while addressing the 

shortfalls of existing education programs to assure that student 

veterans receive their benefits in a timely manner without delay or 

undue hardship. 

To take another step toward that goal today, I hope this hearing 

can focus on several critical issues related to the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

program. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

The ongoing effort to successfully implement the Long-Term Solution (LTS) to ensure that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) information technology (IT) systems are sufficiently robust to efficiently manage the program, the current status of the 

program as we begin the fall 2010 school semester, and a discussion of what changes need to be made to the program in order to 

better meet the needs of eligible veterans. 

Some of you may be aware that yesterday the full Committee 

successfully passed H.R. 5360, the ‘‘Housing, Employment and Living Programs for Veterans Act of 2010,’’ otherwise known as the 

HELP Veterans Act, which is fully paid for without placing a cost 

burden on the taxpayers. 

This bill seeks to provide a number of important improvements 

to VA education benefits, including increasing the flight training 

allowance for chapter 30 recipients; reauthorizing and extending 

the recently expired veteran work-study program; and increasing 

the amount of reporting fees payable to educational institutions 

that enroll veterans receiving educational assistance. 

I look forward to advancing this bipartisan bill as soon as time 

on the House floor is identified. I also look forward to working with 

my colleagues to consider other legislative proposals that seek to 

address the current needs of our Nation’s veterans. 

One such legislative proposal is H.R. 5933, the ‘‘Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010,’’ which 

was introduced by Congressman Walt Minnick. I know several of 

our witnesses have referenced this legislation today and I look forward to learning more about how the proposals in that legislation, 

as well as those included in similar and related legislation, could 

potentially impact the Post-9/11 GI Bill program and its implementation. 

I would now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. 

Boozman, for his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin appears on p. 44.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate the excellent testimony submitted for this hearing, especially the administrative issues raised by the schools. 

It is clear that while not perfect, the level of benefits paid to veterans and the schools on their behalf is excellent. Unfortunately, 

administration of those benefits has not met the same standard, 

because as VA and our staff noted in several meetings before passage as part of the defense supplemental, the program is significantly more complex than any of its predecessors. 

Despite some early missteps, I am fully aware of the efforts that 

VA staff had put into developing the Long-Term Solution, and I 

thank and appreciate them for their work. 

One of the basic difficulties is the wide variation in how public 

institutions in 50 States and the territories are funded and managed and how that impacts VA’s implementation of the Post-9/11 

GI Bill. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

We are now entering the second year of the program and I am 

very concerned about issues surrounding the management of overpayments. 

VA’s basis position is that the veterans are responsible for returning any overpayment to VA and that schools should send overpayments to the veterans and the veterans send them to the VA. 

This seems to be an unnecessarily bureaucratic process that also 

entails significant opportunity for less than optimal results. 

We are also hearing about difficulties when schools send money 

directly back to VA, as well as VA’s concerns about how some 

schools do not identify the veterans whose account should be credited for returned overpayments and the resulting attempts by VA 

to collect overpayments from veterans. 

Perhaps, Madam Chair, it is time for a temporary moratorium on 

chapter 33 collections until VA and the schools get the rules for 

handling the overpayment straightened out. 

Again, we appreciate our witnesses today and look forward to the 

testimony. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on 

p. 44.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Before we proceed I would like to ask unanimous consent for the 

Honorable Walt Minnick of Idaho to be allowed to participate in today’s oversight hearing at a point in time which he may be joining 

us. 

Hearing no objection so ordered. 

I would like to welcome all of our panelists who are testifying before the Subcommittee today. 

Joining us for the first panel of witnesses are Ms. Faith 

DesLauriers, Legislative Director for the National Association of 

Veterans’ Program Administrators (NAVPA). She is accompanied 

by Ms. Margaret Baechtold, Director of Veterans Support Services 

at Indiana University. Also joining us on this first panel is Dr. 

Alan Merten, President of George Mason University, who is representing the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). 

In the interest of time and courtesy to all of our panelists here 

today we ask that you limit your testimony to 5 minutes, focusing 

your comments and recommendations on areas of priorities in your 

written testimony. 

The entire written statement that you have submitted to the 

Subcommittee has been entered into the record. 

Ms. DesLauriers, we will begin with you. Welcome, and you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

STATEMENT OF FAITH DESLAURIERS, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS’ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS; ACCOMPANIED BY MARGARET BAECHTOLD, 

DIRECTOR, VETERANS SUPPORT SERVICES, INDIANA UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS’ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS; AND ALAN G. MERTEN, 

PH.D., PRESIDENT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES 

AND UNIVERSITIES 

STATEMENT OF FAITH DESLAURIERS 

Ms. DESLAURIERS. Thank you and good afternoon Chairwoman 

Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

Accompanying me today is Margaret Baechtold, Director of Veterans Support Services at Indiana University. 

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and for 

the opportunity to share the concerns and recommendations of veteran program administrators, as well as that of the population they 

serve regarding education benefits. 

In keeping with the three areas that you asked for information, 

the concerns that NAVPA hears from veterans regarding their education benefits are that students pursuing their education through 

distance learning should have the same eligibility for housing stipends as students attending what is defined as in-residence training. 

Retired and separated veterans who earned and are otherwise eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill have voiced their concern and extreme disappointment in being denied the ability to transfer their 

entitlement to their dependents. 

Veterans have also voiced their concern that the ability to pursue 

their educational endeavors are restricted to that which is deemed 

by Congress to be traditional. 

Students don’t understand why VA distinguishes between tuition 

and fees with different caps for each rather than combining them 

into one maximum. 

Students are concerned that VA remains unable to credit refunds 

made by the schools to their accounts, and veterans are receiving 

letters from the Debt Management Center (DMC), although those 

students are current with their payment plans negotiated with 

DMC, in an effort to repay the emergency advance payments for 

fall 2009. 

This particular issue is effecting their credit and their ability to 

gain credit. 

Feedback from NAVPA, the schools that administer the GI Bill 

on campuses, there is a critical need for consistent guidance as to 

the correct procedures for returning or refunding payments, as well 

the assurance that those funds returned to the VA will in fact be 

credited to the veteran’s debt or overpayment. 

Many students who access their education benefits are placed at 

a financial disadvantage because of VA’s policy to count class enrollment sessions versus enrollment sessions during a standard semester. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

It is imperative that there be an efficient communication mechanism between schools and the VA. 

Inconsistent guidance to schools among and between the regional 

processing offices (RPOs) and education liaison representatives 

(ELRs) continues to be problematic. Responsibilities associated 

with the program have increased the processing time for each claim 

at school level approximately 300 percent, yet institutions continue 

to be compensated at the rate of $7 for each student enrolled. 

We request that that be changed, it has not been changed in over 

30 years. 

Reinstate the customer service units at each of the RPOs, specifically to work with the veteran program administrators. 

Improvements to chapter 33 that NAVPA believes are needed, 

the GI Bill must remain an earned entitlement and not become a 

need-based award. Leave other scholarships, grants, et cetera, out 

of the equation. 

Eliminate the inequities among rates paid to eligible individuals 

for attendance at schools of different types; public, private, foreign, 

graduate, undergraduate, resident or non-resident. 

There should be an elimination of annual State tuition and fee 

maximums. That would improve timing of certification, processing, 

and payment and accuracy of those payments. 

Tie the living stipend to the training time for all forms of course 

delivery and reduce the minimum training time requirement to 

half-time, rather than more than half-time. 

And, correct the rule that makes it impossible for a reserve component member eligible at less than the 100 percent tier of chapter 

33 to combine Federal tuition assistance, which is first pay, and 

chapter 33, which is second pay, in any way that would cover all 

of their charges. Clarify non-duplication of Federal programs. 

NAVPA members fully support legislation that would expand the 

student work study program and overpayments created by the eligible individual as a result of a reduction or termination in enrollment but, should be recovered from entitlement. 

NAVPA recommends elimination of the multiple levels of eligibility as it relates to required active-duty service. 

Amend chapter 33 to expand educational and training opportunities such as on-the-job training/Apprenticeships and other viable 

and previously approved vocational training and continue to work 

toward providing equity in benefit and simplicity in rules regarding 

eligibility, payments, and the overall administration of the Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to participate in this hearing, to discuss current problems affecting veterans, as well as educational institutions, and to recommend solutions on behalf of our 

Nation’s veterans, servicemembers and their dependents, and the 

National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you or the Committee Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. DesLauriers appears on p. 46.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Dr. Merten, you are now recognized. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

STATEMENT OF ALAN G. MERTEN 

Dr. MERTEN. Madam Chair Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member 

Boozman, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Dr. Alan Merten and I am President of the George Mason 

University. 

Today I represent and present the perspective of the American 

Association of State Colleges and Universities related to the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits programs. Thank you 

for holding this hearing. 

When the Post-9/11 GI Bill was first introduced it, was anticipated that colleges and universities would see a 20 to 25 percent 

increase in enrollment of veterans. At Mason, we saw a 30 percent 

increase in fall 2009 enrollment and a 79 percent increase in spring 

2010. 

One of those newly enrolled veterans introduced President 

Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Webb, Senator John Warner, and Secretary Shinseki at George Mason University when the 

bill was introduced nationally on August 3rd, 2009. 

Your Committee asked that we address three areas. Concerns 

from veterans regarding their educational benefits. Second, feedback from institutions about implementation and administration of 

benefits. And three, improvements in the program that we suggest 

are needed. 

GI Bill benefits have been historically provided to the veteran 

student. As Vietnam-era veterans, my wife and I received benefits 

in this manner. 

The creation and implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit 

program altered this procedure by having the Veterans Affairs 

issue the funds directly to the institution after a certifying process. 

The compressed timeline that the VA faced in implementing this 

program created a difficult situation for many schools and for veterans. 

One of the major and universal issues faced by veteran students 

is related to delays. While there have been some delays in processing benefits, most benefit delays have occurred in reprocessing 

and in payment of other allowances, such as housing and book stipends. 

Because of the changes in how the benefits are issued, student 

veterans rely on their school officials to provide the guidance and 

information they need. 

The VA has often been slow in providing information beyond the 

basic essentials regarding benefits to institutions and veterans. 

It is important to remember that the school official is not a VA 

employee, and in many cases does this additional task as a collateral duty. 

As a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the workload on these staff 

members has increased to a point where many schools, like us at 

George Mason, have had to hire additional personnel to handle not 

only the certification process, but the billing process as well. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill has also presented higher education institutions with a number of challenges that include student veterans 

with academic, mental health, and physical disability needs. 

The academic include veterans that require remedial education 

before starting college, some because they have lost skills in the 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

years since high school and others because they were not collegeready in the first place. 

A recent RAND report indicates that one in five Post-9/11 veterans will suffer from combat stress or cognitive issues such as 

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury 

(TBI). Few schools, and even fewer student health centers are 

equipped to address these needs. 

In addition to the mental health issues U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) indicates that there are over 36,000 servicemembers 

who have been wounded in action. Some of these wounded warriors 

have catastrophic combat injuries that are not typically found on 

campuses where disabilities have a far different meaning. 

More effort to understand how institutions operate and work 

with the Federal Government must occur. 

The VA interpretation of separating tuition and mandatory fees 

related to a cost of an education is just but one example. The higher education community refers to tuition and mandatory fees as a 

single amount, not two separate ones. 

Student veterans change majors, drop or withdraw from a class, 

and have other circumstances that require the certifying offer to review and re-certify the veterans benefits. 

To further complicate the return of funds in an overpayment situation, the VA established two procedures. One to use when classes 

that have not begun, another after classes have begun. 

Contrast this process with the return of Federal financial assistant funds under the Higher Education Act. In these situations institutions recalculate the eligible amount and adjust accordingly. If 

a student has received an overpayment, the overage is returned to 

the Federal Government, if the student is eligible for additional 

funds, the school requests the additional funds. 

Our recommendation is including asking Congress to clearly define the benefit amount for an individual. This entails, among other 

things, eliminating the separate factor for tuition fees. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill, which establishes a highest in-State rate 

for the academic year, fails to take into account tuition increases 

at institutions during the year. Some changes require to incorporate and to accommodate these tuition and fee increases that are 

midyear. 

Another issue that Congress should address for the veteran is related to providing a basic allowance for housing, a basic housing allowance for nearly 70 percent of veterans who receive some of their 

education online. 

Basic housing allowance benefits are only awarded now to veterans receiving their post-secondary education within the classroom setting. 

Finally, we ask Congress to consider requiring the VA to collect 

and publish complete and timely data on the Post-9/11 GI Bill, including data on customer service by the VA to veteran students 

and institutions. 

Institutions like George Mason University stand ready to work 

with the VA to provide and to ensure an ease of access for veterans 

enrolling in post-secondary education. 

The good news is that the VA has increased its outreach to 

schools to work collaboratively and openly with the higher eduVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

cation community to understand how the VA processes could be improved to better and more effectively assist veteran students. 

The higher education community is prepared and eagerly looks 

forward to working collaboratively with the VA to streamline this 

program and reduce the confusion to institutions, the VA, and more 

importantly the veteran. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merten appears on p. 50.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Dr. Merten. 

We have a pending vote, but we are going to see if we can get 

through the questions that the Ranking Member and I have, at 

least for the folks on our first panel. 

We have in past Congresses, and in this one, tried to grapple 

with the issue of other scholarships and other resources that veterans have available, and maybe even before they became eligible 

for education benefits with the VA they had taken out loans or had 

been eligible for Pell Grants. 

I think you both mentioned it in your written testimony and referenced it briefly in the testimony you just provided, how do we 

keep the GI Bill from becoming a needs-based award? Is it related 

to VA being the last payer as it relates to how that effects other 

types of financial aid the student may receive. 

Dr. MERTEN. From a perspective of President, and I also have to 

remember my wife always comments when someone asks me a detailed question, don’t expect Alan for the detailed answer, he is just 

the President. 

But from our perspective I would view and as a former beneficiary of the GI Bill this benefit is an earned benefit, pure and 

simple, and if there are other benefits that the veteran receives, 

you know, that is a separate issue, but I would hope this doesn’t 

become a need base. This is a special benefit. It is not merit, it is 

not need, it is an award, and I think—hopefully that doesn’t 

change. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Ms. DesLauriers. 

Ms. DESLAURIERS. I believe it should not be reduced by any other 

financial assistance, that the GI Bill should not be reduced by any 

other assistance that is, the student receives regardless of where 

it comes from unless it meets the definition as currently defined in 

the law that it is another active-duty benefit. 

So I think everybody agrees that if the student gets tuition assistance because they are on active duty, they should not be able 

to duplicate that benefit with their GI Bill. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Ms. DesLauriers, in your estimation, do 

you have any clear sense of what has prevented the VA from being 

able to credit refunds made by the schools to the students’ accounts. 

Ms. DESLAURIERS. No, ma’am. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Mr. Wilson may shed some light 

on that for us. 

Ms. DESLAURIERS. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Then we have the issue that we have 

heard about and many of our colleagues have heard about directly 

from constituents or those from the State Approving Agencies that 

are working with some of these students. This is the issue of the 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

overpayments and the difficult position that many veterans are 

being put in. If either of you could elaborate on the problems that 

you are seeing from your vantage point. I think Ms. DesLauriers 

you had mentioned when they get their letters from the Debt Management Center or other collection agencies that are actually calling and hounding our veterans who relied on the information and 

the calculation of benefits. I mean, I have heard a lot from some 

of my constituents, and it is effecting their credit, their access to 

credit, as you mentioned. 

Do you want to elaborate at all and from your vantage point of 

some of the problems that the students you are familiar with are 

experiencing. 

Ms. DESLAURIERS. I have one particular case, and I didn’t bring 

the student name with me, but I would be glad to provide that for 

you, because she did authorize me to do that should you ask. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. 

Ms. DESLAURIERS. But the one case was a recent case of a student who actually went into—she got the emergency money in advance last year and she was paying her payments faithfully every 

single month like was agreed, and all of a sudden she started getting these letters from the Debt Management Center indicating 

that her credit, it had been turned over to all of these various credit agencies, and then she got notice from her credit card company, 

they canceled her credit card. She could no longer use her card. 

And I believe that she did speak with her representative about it, 

and just by happenstance she ran into him at a particular town 

meeting and was able to talk with him, and I believe that he would 

address that, but those are the kind of situations, and that is not 

just unique to my campus. 

Apparently something happened just recently—and I am sure 

that Mr. Wilson can identify what could have happened in the system that caused that to happen—but just in general when the student has a debt then they are going to be turned over to the collection agency, and they get letters to that effect. 

Well the matter of fact is there is no debt. The school has returned the money, it is just not being identified as having been returned. 

And I will tell you that one of the other issues is that even the 

schools are sending checks to DMC and they are not being cashed, 

they are actually going void, and then our checks then become void, 

we have to stop payment on them, that costs the schools money to 

stop payment on those checks and reissue again. We have had that 

happen more than once with the same student where the check is 

90 day, 90 days, and it never was cashed. So we don’t really know 

that until we realize that our accounts are not balancing. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Merten, you mentioned the problem of the ancillary fees, and 

all of the problems associated with that, with them occurring and 

then they are not there. And Ms. DesLauriers, again, similar 

things. 

I guess, as we have dealt with this it seems to me like, and I 

would really just like your opinion, it seems like the current situaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
10 

tion that we are in really isn’t workable. Do you agree with that? 

I mean—— 

Ms. DESLAURIERS. Yes, sir. 

Dr. MERTEN. Yeah, I particular—I mean your comments before, 

it is time to step back a little. I mean here we have something we 

have to do. I believe as a Nation we have this obligation, so we 

have to do it. 

Now if we have to do it there is really—if you want the three 

players, there is the veterans, there is the institutions, and there 

is it is Federal Government, Veterans Affairs. 

We have to ask ourselves what is—what are we trying to accomplish and then what is the role of each of the three? And I think 

in many cases we didn’t do that, and now we have to do it. 

And if we—you know, it ain’t rocket science, and it is just—I 

think there is just things that weren’t thought of particularly how 

we as institutions operate and then how—and what the requirement of the veteran—the returning veteran is having enough difficulty getting used to college, and to add these information burdens on it is unthinkable. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yeah. No, I agree, and we appreciate your help in 

helping us sort that out, and we have had enough lapse in time 

now. It is not like the law was just passed, we have given it time, 

we have worked through a couple cycles, and so we have experience. 

So I guess the only comment I would make, Madam Chair, is 

that you know, again, this is just something that we have to pursue, and as you are, and I appreciate your leadership in doing this. 

That we have to bring it to a head in working with individuals like 

this and the rest of our panel, working with VA that is also working so hard to get this done. Hopefully we will be able to arrive at 

a solution. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. All right, thank you, Mr. Boozman, and 

I know you made a recommendation in your opening remarks about 

a temporary moratorium on the collection efforts. 

I think as you and I both know, we knew we were going to be 

in for some headaches, despite our support of this important benefit, because a lot of these things weren’t completely thought 

through in the desire to move forward as quickly as possible to deliver the benefits. And as we do that, we need to recognize that we 

should be holding harmless the veteran. 

We will work with the VA and with the institutions, while at the 

same time protecting the taxpayer. We all know from talking to our 

constituents that the veteran isn’t being held harmless, and in a 

time of terrible downturn in the economy and tight credit, the last 

thing we need is for veterans credit scores to be effected as they 

are trying to get through, invest in themselves, and in many instances providing for their families. 

We are going to have to head down for votes and then we will 

resume the questioning with Mr. Teague when we return for the 

first panel. We may have a second round of questioning for any further comments or questions that the Ranking Member or I may 

have. Okay. 

The hearing will be in recess. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
11 

[Recess] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. We appreciate everyone’s patience as we 

have wrapped up the last votes for the day, so we can move ahead 

with the remainder of our hearing. 

Ms. DesLauriers, in the essence of time I may have some additional questions that I will submit in writing that you can take for 

the record, Mr. Boozman may as well, and so we are going to move 

to our second panel. 

But before we do and as you are taking your seats I do want to 

recognize Mr. Minnick for statement. Welcome. Thank you for joining us on the dais today. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WALT MINNICK 

Mr. MINNICK. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for allowing me to 

join this hearing today. 

I would also like to thank our panel of representatives from the 

American Legion, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, 

Veterans of Modern Warfare, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

I thank them for their military service and for the insight into 

what must be done to improve and simplify the new GI Bill, which 

this Congress passed with strong bipartisan support last year. 

I would like to make a few brief remarks about the importance 

of this bill, H.R. 5933, and the ‘‘Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act.’’ 

In 1945, the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs conducted a 

lengthy hearing to review the effectiveness of the first GI Bill, 

which was intended to give returning World War II veterans a college education in return for their service in saving the Nation from 

foreign aggression. 

As we are doing today, Members of that Committee listened to 

veterans’ groups request upgrades to the first version of the bill so 

that the benefits could be extended to things like vocational education and correspondence courses. And now, two generations later, 

we are doing the same thing today. 

Just as the World War II GI Bill was upgraded to help educate 

what is often referred to as the greatest generation, we must upgrade and improve the new GI Bill to make it workable so it can 

fully satisfy the educational needs of a new generation of returning 

veterans. 

As a veteran myself from the Vietnam-era, I have many friends 

who volunteered to serve in that war so they could go to college 

after they left the military and with their GI benefits to obtain the 

education necessary to launch into successful professional careers. 

Having listened to many veteran service organizations and veterans from my home State of Idaho and elsewhere, I have introduced H.R. 5933 to offer the comprehensive improvements needed 

to make the new GI Bill fit the needs of this generations returning 

veterans. 

To provide a brief example, students enrolling in an excellent private college in my district, Northwest Nazarene University in 

Nampa, Idaho, will directly benefit from this bill in several ways. 

By raising the maximum tuition cap to $20,000 per year H.R. 

5933 will significantly increase the tuition benefits available for 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
12 

veterans attending Northwest Nazarene, and other excellent, but 

expensive, private colleges. 

The bill will also afford a living allowance to veterans opting to 

pursue their degrees online, a benefit they were previously denied. 

It will also reimburse travel costs for distance learners, and includes a new $1,000 allowance for increasingly expensive student 

books, both hard copy and electronic. 

The bill will also make educational benefits available for those 

veterans electing to pursue vocational education or other technical 

training. 

My offices in Idaho and Washington have listened to stories 

shared by veterans who have been unable to take full advantage 

of the new GI’s benefits, benefits Congress intended to confer with 

last year’s legislation. Many others have had their benefits reduced 

or unnecessarily limited because of the effect of regulations imposed under the Bill. 

To fulfill the promise we make to today’s young people who volunteer to put their lives in harm’s way to serve in the military and 

preserve our way of life, we must provide them with the education 

they need after their military service to be successful in today’s 

high tech world. 

This bill makes the corrections to last year’s landmark GI Bill required for us to redeem that promise. 

In closing, I would like to thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin 

for her support in this effort and very much look forward to working with her, Chairman Filner, the Ranking Member, and my Republican colleagues in moving this bill through to passage in the 

remaining days of this Congress. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

[The prepared Statement of Congressman Minnick appears on 

p. 45.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Minnick, and I thank 

you for your hard work and your efforts not only with this Subcommittee and the full Committee, but working with a number of 

our veteran service organizations, and clearly with your constituents who have had concerns and have faced some barriers in fully 

accessing the education benefits that were authorized in the last 

Congress and what we can do the make the improvements. I thank 

you and I thank you for joining us today. 

I would now like to invite the second panel to the witness table. 

Joining us on our second panel of witnesses is Mr. Donald Overton, 

Jr., Executive Director for the Veterans of Modern Warfare (VMW); 

Mr. James Wear, Assistant Director, National Veterans Service for 

the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW); Mr. Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economics Commission of 

the American Legion; and Mr. Tim Embree, Legislative Associate 

for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). 

Thank you all for being here at the Subcommittee and we look 

forward to your testimony. 

Again, your written statements have been made part of the hearing record, and so we ask that you keep your remarks to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Overton, we will begin with you. You are now recognized for 

5 minutes. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
13 

STATEMENTS OF DONALD D. OVERTON, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF MODERN WARFARE; JAMES D. 

WEAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; 

ROBERT MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; AND TIM EMBREE, 

LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA 

STATEMENT OF DONALD D. OVERTON, JR. 

Mr. OVERTON. Thank you. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of Veterans of Modern Warfare and our National President, Mr. Joseph Morgan, we 

thank you for the opportunity to present an update on the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

My name is Donald Overton and I currently serve as Executive 

Director for VMW. 

Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VMW members 

across the Nation have been afforded the opportunity to pursue 

educational endeavors at varying institutions of higher learning, 

yet, far too many have been left behind. 

It became readily apparent that this historically significant legislation had a multitude of unforeseen limitations. Hopefully, this 

Committee, along with your colleagues in the 111th Congress, will 

correct these limitations and ensure the maximum effectiveness of 

the most generous investment in veterans’ educational benefits 

since the end of World War II. 

H.R. 5933, or GI Bill 2.0, as it has been referred to, remedies a 

multitude of concerns espoused by our student veteran members. 

These would include the opportunity to pursue vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job training, correspondence, and flight training 

educational programs; full GI Bill credit for full-time National 

Guard service, to include full-time title 32 Active Guard Reserve; 

a housing stipend for distance learners, or those studying less than 

full-time; Yellow Ribbon benefits to certain National Guard and Reserve personnel members; and an equivalent book stipend for active-duty students. 

We are however concerned by certain language found within the 

legislation. Our primary concern may be found at section 11, the 

proposed elimination of the cost of living allowance for chapter 30, 

Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) recipients to afford a cost of living allowance for chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients. Taking benefits 

from one class of veterans to pay for another is an unjust policy 

consideration and should not have been proposed. We urge you to 

eliminate this from any bill that goes forward. 

Given the prescribed effective date of August 2011, we believe 

this will afford the VA and school administrators, ample time to 

train and prepare for the adjusted benefit package, which will also 

assuage what has been a primary concern of school administrators, 

the lack of communication, and training time by the VA. 

Our Nation owes veterans much more than blood money, especially to our veterans who have been disabled in service to our 

country. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
14 

The central event in their readjustment process is being able to 

secure gainful work at a living wage. Without a major cultural 

transformation within the Department of Veterans Affairs as prescribed by H.R. 3719, the ‘‘Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration Act of 2009,’’ the most well intention chapter 33 legislative remedies may be doomed to failure. 

H.R. 3719 establishes in the Department of Veterans Affairs a 

Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration to be headed by an 

Under Secretary for Veterans Economic Opportunity. It will put 

under one roof the following VA programs. Vocational rehabilitation and employment; educational assistance; veterans’ housing, 

loan, and related programs; veterans’ entrepreneurship; and homeless veterans. 

This bill also would establish as an interagency committee, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs-U.S. Department of Labor (DoL), 

as well as the Small Business Administration Joint Executive Committee on Economic Opportunity to recommend to the secretaries 

of Veterans Affairs and Labor and the administrator of the Small 

Business Administration strategic direction for the joint coordination and sharing of efforts to promote and administer veterans economic opportunity programs, as well as overseeing the implementation of those efforts. 

Unfortunately, we have seen time and again the VA’s failure to 

properly implement the benefit programs within their purview. 

These failures have been particularly pervasive within the Veterans Benefits Administration. It is imperative that during this era 

of cultural transformation within the VA, under Secretary 

Shinseki’s bold leadership, that the Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration be created. 

Removing these relevant programs from the antiquated and overburdened Veterans Benefit Administration will ensure the viability 

of veterans’ economic opportunities for their futures, a just reward 

from a grateful Nation. 

Madam Chairwoman, VMW again thanks you for this opportunity to express our views, and will be pleased to respond to any 

questions you or your colleagues may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Overton appears on p. 56.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Overton. 

Mr. Wear, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. WEAR 

Mr. WEAR. Chairman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member 

Boozman, and the Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 

2.1 million members of the VFW and our Auxiliaries, we would like 

to thank the Subcommittee for giving us the opportunity to testify 

today on the veterans’ concerns regarding their education benefits 

and improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

The VFW is very proud to have worked with this Subcommittee 

to pass the Post-9/11 GI Bill in July of 2008. A generation of veterans is now better equipped to seek higher education, with hundreds and thousands of veterans in schools across the Nation directly benefiting from the dedication, work, and leadership of this 

Subcommittee and its staff. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
15 

Last year, VA had a quote, ‘‘Spring 2010 GI Bill Benefit Processing’’ Web site. It was used to track their processing of education 

enrollments during the 2009–2010 academic year. There is no Web 

site to track the payment of educational benefits during this 2010– 

2011 academic year. 

VFW suggests the same type of Web site should be set up by VA 

to track the processing of both chapter 33, Post-9/11 GI Bill, and 

non-chapter 33 education payments made during this academic 

year of 2010–2011. 

VA is to be commended for having already processed over 

150,000 chapter 33 enrollments, but VA’s educational workload reported this past Monday that there is 173,000, almost 174,000, 

non-chapter 33 enrollments still pending. 

We believe that the VA needs to focus on not only chapter 33, 

but also on the timely processing of non-chapter 33 enrollments, 

Montgomery GI Bill, AEP, et cetera. 

There are additional improvements that can be made by re-examining the Post-9/11 GI Bill with an eye toward simplifying and 

strengthening the benefits it provides. We offer a number of suggestions to improve, simplify, and strengthen the legislation with 

the goal of ensuring equitable benefits for equivalent service. 

The VFW offers its strong support for H.R. 5933, the ‘‘Post-9/11 

Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.’’ 

The VFW believes a number of changes can be made to the Post9/11 GI Bill to adjust the needs of today’s servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Many of these changes are reflected in 

the Bill. 

Of the many positive changes in this legislation, the provisions 

that would allow Guard and Reserve members to count active-duty 

service under title 32 towards chapter 33 eligibility is perhaps the 

most important. This change will credit these men and women for 

their services in securing our Nation’s borders and airports, cleaning up the Gulf, saving lives and property after natural disasters, 

such as Hurricane Katrina. Making sure the Reserve component 

receives equitable benefits for equivalent service is a top VFW priority. 

To further strengthen the benefit, the legislation would also 

eliminate the State-based payment cap, replacing it with a guarantee that chapter 33 benefits will fully cover the cost of any public 

undergraduate or graduate program in the Unites States. 

Further, it offers a dollar for dollar match up to $20,000 per year 

for all approved non-public institutions of higher learning, IHLs, in 

the United States and foreign IHLs. 

The VFW also supports providing housing stipends for veterans 

pursuing a program of education at a foreign IHL, at a half-time 

rate of training, through distance learning, and utilizing the chapter 31 vocational rehabilitation program. 

This legislation looks to expand the GI Bill to include on-the-job 

training and apprenticeships. 

The original GI Bill provided training for apprenticeships and vocational training for World War II veterans. We believe the Post9/11 GI Bill should also provide our current veterans with the same 

opportunities to seek careers in skilled trades. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
16 

These programs represent the most effective direct employment 

programs available to our Nation’s newest veterans. Many veterans 

have transferable knowledge and technical skills acquired in the 

military that gives them a head start on earning a technical education that would help us re-energize our economy. 

The proposed change to the lump sum payment for books, supplies, equipment, and other educational costs for individuals on active duty pursuing a program of education is also supported by the 

VFW. 

This legislation will establish a process allowing a veteran to 

take multiple licensure and/or certification tests and that there 

would be no charge to the veterans entitlement for these tests as 

long as they did not exceed $2,000. Again, the VFW supports this. 

By streamlining processes and opening new avenues to education 

and training, veterans will be better equipped to make their ambitions a reality. 

Once again, thank you for hearing the voice of the VFW and its 

members. We look forward to continuing to work with you to improve the lives of America’s veterans and their families. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions you or the Members of your 

Subcommittee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wear appears on p. 58.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Wear. 

Mr. Madden, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MADDEN 

Mr. MADDEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Boozman 

for allowing the American Legion to give its views on the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

Last fall, the number of veterans receiving delayed payments 

rose by the tens of thousands. VA did not have enough staff to take 

on the overwhelming task of processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims on 

their antiquated system. 

Measures were taken to increase productivity, including hiring 

additional claims processors, mandatory overtime, and having the 

VA Central Office also process claims. 

One year later where are we? While the VA has made strides in 

processing claims efficiently, the American Legion still receives 

calls and e-mails from veterans and their families about the financial burden they are forced to undergo due to the delayed payment 

of housing allowance. 

Yes, VA does have the updated IT system up and running, but 

we still continue to receive information from the field that veterans 

are forced to make drastic decisions in their financial planning to 

make ends meet until they receive their payment. 

Just last week, I received multiple e-mails from student veterans 

making note of the following issues with VA. One, initial processing 

is very slow. Two, unable to get a person on the phone to physically 

talk to about their issues. And three, the amount of funding initially allocated was incorrect and took time, long lengths to rectify. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
17 

Communication also seems to be a constant concern. RPOs give 

schools one policy while another RPO gives another school a different policy setting up veterans and their families for failure. 

If a veterans benefit are not processed correctly, they are forced 

to navigate a maze of VA bureaucracy and departments that don’t 

talk to each other, VA Education Services and VA Debt Management Center, and until these issues are rectified, sometimes taking 

months, the veteran has to survive without their monthly living allowance. 

The American Legion consistently receives calls and e-mails 

about the undue burden, the slow process of GI Bill payments, and 

how it adversely affects them and their families. Veterans are incurring undue debt to manage the time between payments, and 

when they finally do receive those payments, many aren’t sure if 

they are correct. 

Yes, the new IT system should allow veterans to self-navigate 

their claim in December of 2010, but until then how many veterans 

need to go through the stress and burden making life changing decisions just to go to school. 

This is an earned benefit that is designed to be a viable transition for veterans to continue with their education and make it a 

successful transition to employment. Veterans who might suffer 

from PTSD and TBI need to have a hassle-free transition. Going 

to college is a path to success, and if we make this process harder 

for them, we are doing them a disservice. This cannot continue on. 

There are four additional issues that the American Legion would 

also like to address. Housing allowance for distance learners, full 

funding of title 32 Active Guard Reserves, vocation and technical 

training correspondence and flight training, and the transferability 

for those who have already retired. 

The American Legion has organizational resolutions which advocate for these issues to be addressed. The American Legion is excited to work with this Committee on getting these measures 

passed and see equity brought to veterans and their families. 

The American Legion currently is the ardent supporter of H.R. 

5933 and looks forward working with the Committee to getting this 

passed. 

I thank you for the opportunity to give the American Legion’s position, and look forward to working with the Members of the Subcommittee on veterans education. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you might have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Madden appears on p. 60.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Madden. 

Mr. Embree, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF TIM EMBREE 

Mr. EMBREE. Thank you. 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 

America’s, nearly 200,000 members and supporters, thank you for 

allowing us to testify at this critical hearing on the status of the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill and recommended improvements. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
18 

My name is Tim Embree, I am from St. Louis, Missouri, and I 

served two combat tours in Iraq in the United States Marine 

Corps. 

Our work on the new GI Bill is not done. Even though over 

340,000 students have taken advantage of this historic new benefit, 

tens of thousands of veterans are still waiting for their chance to 

earn a first-class education. 

Whether these students are pursuing vocational or distance 

learning programs or are serving full-time in the National Guard, 

too many young veterans can’t take advantage of these new GI Bill 

benefits, and many others already using the new GI Bill have had 

their benefits cut by initially complicated regulations in chapter 33. 

In order to complete our work on the new GI Bill, IAVA recommends swift passage of H.R. 5933, commonly referred to as the 

new GI Bill 2.0. 

H.R. 5933, introduced by Representative Minnick and co-sponsored by Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, and supported by all the 

veterans groups on this panel, will ensure that all student veterans 

have access to the new GI Bill and will assist the VA in delivering 

those benefits in a timely manner. 

Over the past year, nearly one million people have visited IAVA’s 

new GI Bill Web site. We have provided direct help to thousands 

of veterans trying to navigate their GI Bill benefits, and we have 

trained hundreds of schools on the ins and outs of the new GI Bill. 

Our daily interactions with student veterans and schools have revealed many concerns regarding the VA’s handling of the new GI 

Bill. 

We do want to credit the VA for making some significant improvements in their handling of the new GI Bill since last year; 

however, we have been cautioning student veterans to prepare for 

another rough fall. IAVA is deeply concerned that the VA has been 

failing to communicate critical information to students and schools 

missing key Congressionally-mandated deadlines, and is already 

reporting a backlog of over 190,000 overall GI Bill claims. 

Student veterans should be focusing on their studies and not 

having to worry about keeping a roof over their heads. Unfortunately without the new GI Bill 2.0 and better communication, that 

won’t be the case. 

As you will see in our written testimony, the current form of the 

new GI Bill’s tuition benefits are both confusing and completely unpredictable. 

For example, IAVA member, Aaron Sanvick, moved his family 

from California to Minnesota in order to utilize his hard earned 

new GI Bill benefits in a State with relatively high tuition rates. 

Aaron could have attended a number of more prestigious colleges, 

but he was committed to not incurring any student loans, and the 

Minnesota rates provided just that opportunity. 

He started school in early August and wasn’t initially concerned 

that the VA was late publishing the new tuition rates for the fall. 

However, on September 1st, exactly one month later, when the VA 

published the 2010–2011 rates, Aaron was in for a big shock. His 

tuition rates had unexpectedly dropped by 40 percent. Aaron and 

his family now owe the school an additional $8,400 for this acaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 

demic year alone, forcing him to take out student loans to avoid 

being kicked out of school. 

Family budgets are tight, drastic and unexpected changes like 

what happened to Aaron can be extremely destructive to the student and their family. Sadly this is the second time the tuition 

rates have dropped without warning. This year is Minnesota and 

last year was Florida. 

New GI Bill 2.0 will not only restore Aaron’s benefits, but will 

ensure that this never happens again. 

New GI Bill 2.0 is a comprehensive effort to address the concerns 

of tens of thousands of student veterans and their families and involves changes that are large and small. 

New GI Bill 2.0 helps veterans access valuable job training by 

granting Post-9/11 GI bill benefits to veterans in vocational, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training programs. 

In today’s rough job market this type of training is more important than ever. 

New GI Bill 2.0 also helps initial Guard servicemembers by 

granting full GI Bill credit for full-time service. This will reward 

National Guardsmen for responding to national disasters such as 

the BP oil spill clean up, and the over 43,000 full-time active 

Guard and Reservists. 

We believe that the same uniform in the same service deserve 

the same benefits. 

This is also a historic precedence for the new GI Bill 2.0. One 

year after the World War II GI Bill passed, the 78th Congress realized they needed to amend the first World War II GI Bill to include 

veterans who had been left behind, ironically distance learners and 

vocational students, and to patch up the tuition benefit. It was actually the upgraded version of the World War II GI Bill that is currently lauded as one of the landmark pieces of legislation in the 

20th Century. 

This is why if we act now and finish the work this Congress 

began 2 years ago, the Post-9/11 GI Bill or new GI Bill will be remembered as one of the greatest investments in our country’s veterans for the 21st Century. 

History has shown us the importance of investing in our country’s veteran, and IAVA applauds the phenomenal work this Committee continues to do on behalf of our Nation’s veterans and their 

families. 

IAVA is proud to speak on behalf of the thousands of veterans 

coming home every day. We work tirelessly so veterans know we 

have their back. Working together with this Congress and the Department of Veteran Affairs we will be able to guarantee that every 

veteran is confident that America has their back. 

Thank you for your time today and I look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Embree appears on p. 63.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Embree. Let me just 

start with you. You had mentioned what happened in Minnesota 

and Florida, and this is really a question for anyone on the panel. 

My recollection is that most veteran service organizations originally supported the individual State-by-State calculations and caps. 

I am now wondering in light of some of the changes that are being 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 

proposed and some provisions in H.R. 5933, as you rightly identify, 

Mr. Embree, I have become a co-sponsor. I am all for being as generous as possible, I just want to make this a program that is a little bit easier to administer. That has been my concern all along as 

you know. 

Do each of the organizations present at the witness table today 

oppose or support a State-by-State cap. 

Mr. EMBREE. Well, ma’am, thank you for the question. From 

talking with the veteran service organizations—in fact we have 

formed a veteran service organization working group that has been 

focused on this subject for quite a while now. We talk on a regular 

basis. And the reason is, is because we realize it needs to be simplification and upgrades to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

We feel that by including all public schools and creating a national baseline for all private schools, it simplifies it so folks know 

going into the school year as well as students—or students as well 

as schools both know going into the school year what their numbers will be. It takes away the uncertainty, it makes it easier for 

the VA to process the claims, and ideally it will make it a simple 

process for everyone involved. 

So we feel that by making a national standardized format instead of a State-by-State format, we think it would be easier to implement the GI Bill. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Anyone else on the panel. 

Mr. MADDEN. Well, speaking for the American Legion, Madam 

Chairman, we believe—we are not exactly opposed to the State-byState, we believe that this is a better recommendation for fulfilling 

the tuition and fees. 

Mr. WEAR. The VFW also has found such variation from State 

to State that a national one would make it a lot easier for all the 

veterans and the schools to know what they are going to expect, 

how much will it cost. 

You know, the University of District of Columbia’s tuition and 

fees makes it so much lower, and when you look at many other 

States, there is such a difference that a lot of the people are worried, well gee, how much is it going to be? It is this, you know, $40, 

$50 a credit, a lot more at various schools across the—all across 

the United States. 

So we think if you can get a national one, everybody would have 

the same thing going in. They don’t have to worry about it. How 

much more do you have to worry about besides your housing allowance and where to live and where the kids go, and you know, your 

studies? Let us focus on letting that veteran work on his studies, 

minimize the other things. 

Mr. OVERTON. Madam Chairman, on behalf of Veterans of Modern Warfare, while we wholeheartedly support streamlining the 

benefit, we do have some concern with those States that are potentially impacted by the cap. They are very veteran densely populated States and there is varying impact there that we would like 

to see a bit of a greater statistical analysis of how many veterans 

are going to be potentially impacted and what those implications 

are going to be not only to the State economies—because let us face 

it, there are different regional economic concerns around the country. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
21 

So we would at least like to see some additional statistics come 

out of VA to better analyze and understand the impact of this cap 

system, but we fully support a streamline, and certainly $20,000 

looks like a good starting point, but once again, you know, given 

that current cap structure right now, five States, New York, New 

Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Texas are going to be impacted by 

this proposal. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Have you given some thought to one of 

the contributing factors to the complexity and some of the delays? 

As I understand it, or the VA is that when the State budgets started hitting these crises points they are the perfect storm of trying 

to implement this on time and the delays that some of the State 

legislatures had to make as it related to their tuition rates for that 

particular academic year. Do you believe that this type of proposal 

gets around that problem. 

Mr. EMBREE. Ma’am, if I may jump in. I do think it does shrink 

that problem a bit, because now we are used to—we know that the 

VA has been late before issuing tuition rates and the schools have 

been dealing with it. By the schools knowing—if you are a private 

school you know that you are at least getting that baseline then 

plus the Yellow Ribbon program so you can budget saying I know 

this many students can attend, or we know we have this much 

money coming in, and then we have to figure out the difference because we are part of the Yellow Ribbon program. Or if we are a 

public school we know that when your tuition rates do come out 

that the VA will honor that because all public schools will be covered. And 75 percent of students attend public schools, and the remaining folks in the private schools are eligible for the Yellow Ribbon under this new bill. It actually includes all folks, not just 100 

percent students. 

So it does make it easier for the schools to prepare and for the 

VA to also know what amounts they need to issue. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess the only thing I would ask is that in the 

Bill there is the elimination of the COLA for the Montgomery GI 

beneficiaries as the means to fund some of the increased benefits 

for Post-9/11 beneficiaries. It seems like the Post-9/11 students already receive more in educational assistance than those in the 

Montgomery GI Bill program. Isn’t that a significant problem. 

Mr. OVERTON. And I will address that on behalf of Veterans of 

Modern Warfare. We see that. 

One of the things I think the ultimate end game here is, is to 

begin to probably sunset some of the previous GI Bill benefits. If 

we are able to make chapter 33 comprehensive and we are able to 

take those components of such things as the trade schools and 

these other options that individuals that are currently under chapter 30 MGIB benefits are now eligible to utilize chapter 33 and we 

begin to look that we are getting into that era where we are at 

about the ten-year limitation on MGIB beneficiaries for those individuals that are now going to be eligible for chapter 33, I think 

eventually that would also enhance VA’s ability to implement if we 

began to phase out some of the older provisions as long as we ensure that chapter 33 has the mechanisms in place to supersede 

chapter 30 beneficiaries. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
22 

There is going to be a little bit of a gray area. There are reasons 

for extensions in these benefits and such, so again, we would caution and say let us make sure that we don’t create a scenario where 

we have negative implications on any class of veteran out there. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No, and I agree, and that to me really is a concern, because that I think really would effect a number of individuals. 

I agree with you in the sense that I think one of the things that 

really in working—both sides working together to create the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee I think really has been a benefit 

in the sense of allowing us to focus on these kind of issues versus 

everything getting wrapped up in the past with other benefits. I 

think it really has been very helpful and I really again praise Congressman Buyer and Congressman Filner in getting all that 

worked out early on. 

And likewise, I appreciate your statement in support of looking 

at the VA and trying to make it such that we can, you know, again, 

make sure that we are spending adequate time, you know, on these 

issues. So I appreciate that. 

I really don’t have any further questions. I just appreciate all 

that you guys do as always. The testimony is very, very good, very 

helpful as always, and we appreciate you being here. Thank you 

very much. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. Minnick. 

Mr. MINNICK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate again all of your thoughts and the hard work you 

have put into this issue and the hard work you all are going to 

make in getting this through the legislative process. 

In thinking about that one of the key issues is going to be the— 

I think all except Mr. Embree indicated they would like some further enhancements made in the interest of equality or dealing comprehensively with the problem, but the biggest obstacle to the success of this legislation is going to be the extent to which, if at all, 

it makes the deficit worse, and I think it is going to be very hard 

in a Congress where only a quarter of the people have ever been 

in the service and where there is strong momentum I think shared 

by all of us here today, that we not worsen the deficit. 

If we are going to make further improvements, we are going to 

have to find other places where we can cut in order to make this 

bill revenue neutral. 

Do any of you have constructive thoughts as to areas we might 

look beyond the pay fors that are contained in this legislation? And 

I would appreciate creative thought from any of the four of you, because I know the Chair is going to have trouble getting it scheduled and getting it approved unless we can assure that it is deficit 

neutral. 

So Mr. Embree. 

Mr. EMBREE. Yes, sir, thank you for bringing that up and thank 

you again for your leadership, and ma’am, for your leadership on 

this bill. 

As you all are well aware H.R. 5933 has a lot of built in pay fors. 

We do not agree with any sort of cut to any benefits. We do agree 

to some freezes by making sure those veterans are included now 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
23 

in chapter 33. We feel that the language is very important that it 

does that by allowing folks that are National Guardsmen that 

weren’t included earlier under chapter 33, active Guard Reserve, 

vocational schools, on the job training, and things like that, we feel 

that is a very large pay for by shifting them over. It is not any 

elimination of money, that is shifting the money with the veterans. 

We are trying to get everyone under one chapter. 

We also have a list of pay fors that are included that we do think 

together add up to quite a few dollars. Closing the part-time loophole. There are a lot of veterans attending school part-time that are 

eligible to receive nearly twice as many benefits as a full-time student right now. 

So the regulation created a part-time loophole, which says that 

even though a part-time student qualifies for full living allowance 

by taking just 1 hour extra than halftime they get full—the burning of their entitlement is slower rate while getting that full rate 

for Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). 

We feel that is not a good way to spend GI Bill dollars. We think 

if you go part-time you get part-time of your benefit for living allowance, and if you go three quarters time you get three quarters 

time, full-time full-time. That is going to save a couple billion dollars over 10 years. 

We also have included the active-duty loophole. Right now there 

is unlimited tuition and fees to active-duty folks that are taking 

classes through the GI Bill benefit. So we feel by eliminating that 

that is going save millions of dollars over those 10 years. 

So by adding it all up we do believe that it is going to be a 

large—it is going to take a large chunk away from the cost of the 

bill, and we are also willing to look at other ways to pay for it. I 

think the veteran service organizations are very excited about finding a way to make this cost neutral to get it implemented as quickly as possible before the October recess. 

Mr. MINNICK. Thank you. Mr. Madden. 

Mr. MADDEN. I have to concur with Mr. Embree. We believe that 

the pay fors that are included within this Bill should possibly make 

this a neutral bill. 

Obviously as an organization, we are not—we are opposed to 

making or cutting any benefits that are currently being received by 

veterans and their families. 

Mr. MINNICK. But if we have to make further cuts to make it revenue neutral when we get a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

score will you work with us in doing that. 

Mr. MADDEN. We would love that opportunity to work with you. 

Mr. MINNICK. Thank you. 

Mr. MADDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. MINNICK. I yield back. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Minnick. 

Yes, CBO gives us headaches, and we are going to keep working 

to trying to work through that issue. The Post-9/11 GI Bill had a 

pretty big price tag too, but the budget situation, the public outcry 

about doing something about your debt and deficits has gotten even 

more severe from when the Post-9/11 GI Bill was added to the 

emergency supplemental. But we are committed to working with 

you on this and continuing the communication. The dialogue that 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
24 

I know that Mr. Minnick’s office has had with CBO, is not going 

to diminish my efforts that I undertook in the last Congress and 

in this one, whether it is in a budget negotiation or elsewhere to 

be able to make this a priority and find offsets. I think that the 

American public wants us to pay for our priorities, and this is a 

priority that we share, and so that is the battle we have to wage 

over here. Until we can get on the playing field to have that fight 

we have to deal with what we have currently. 

Mr. Madden and Mr. Embree, you stated that you have concerns 

from what you are hearing from your members, other student veterans, about the communication of critical information. Certainly 

we have heard concerns about customer service. I have got concerns from my constituents as it relates to some of the regionalization and the ability of either State Approving Agency officers or 

others who are trying to work to get information. 

Some of you had mentioned in your testimony the inability of 

some of your members that are student veterans to get answers, 

get access, and concerns that even the Web site is difficult to navigate. 

Tell me a little bit more about sort of specifically what is the information that you feel the VA is not effectively communicating 

that is the most critical to the student veterans that could avoid 

some of the problems that we have experienced over the past year. 

Mr. MADDEN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

The incidents that I receive at the assistance director position is 

every student veteran comes to me and says, I don’t even know 

what is going on. I call the Call Center, I get an answer from someone, I get another answer from somebody else. And this is not referring to the RPOs, this is referring to specifically the Call Center. 

They are not getting the answer they need. They call back 2 days 

later they get a different answer. They call back 2 days later they 

get a different answer. 

So I believe with the new IT system and them allowing them to 

self-navigate their claim, knowing where their claim is during the 

process, being able to see that, I believe that will further educate 

them. 

Obviously we are advocating for more outreach from the VA on 

a constant basis, but we—I think that will fill some of the disparity 

there with the new IT system and giving them the ability to see 

where their claim is at that current time. 

Mr. EMBREE. Yes, ma’am. One of the major issues we found this 

past August, which was a similar issue we had last year was a tuition and fee rates, the chart coming out late, and that makes it impossible for students, as well as schools, to budget for the following 

semester. 

Now we do understand that some of the States were late turning 

the information into the VA, so what we would like to ask for is 

the VA to post the chart incomplete. Post what State information 

they do have and then turn to the VSO community use us as an 

asset to pressure the States to get those tuition and fee rates 

turned into the VA so the VA can post those. 

We want to remind the VA that we want to work with them on 

this. They have done a much better job, they are improving, but 

we need more communication and transparency with the veteran 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
25 

service organizations so we can help them so if they have a situation where they have a partial chart they can post what information they do have and we can help them gather the rest of the information. 

Mr. WEAR. Also when a veteran calls there should be a method 

to keep track of on this day they were told (a), 2 days later they 

are told (b). At some point you have got to be able to pull up Jim 

Wear’s record and say on Tuesday I told you this, you call on 

Thursday or next Tuesday it is still that. So there has to be some 

way where when the VA get a call from a veteran they have to be 

able to pull up that person’s information. What did you ask? Here 

is what we told you. So that they have a more consistent response, 

but centered on the veteran. 

Whether they call a Call Center or an RPO, those all should go 

back to the veteran so when that veteran calls in again they are 

going to go to that record, not necessarily, you know, here is your 

question, oh, well here is our best guess or here is our answer. 

It would be better if they focused on what the veteran had asked 

and use that as a tracking mechanism, the go back to that point 

so that they can get that veteran, here is what we told you. Well, 

okay, it has changed, but at least they would know what the veteran had been told and should be able to then say yes, no, be a 

little clearer on focusing bringing everything back to the veteran. 

Mr. OVERTON. And briefly, Madam Chairwoman, if I could just 

address bringing us back to the concept of H.R. 3719 and the establishment of the fourth arm within VA, creating that what we look 

to do from the DoD/VA interface with a seamless transition, we 

really need to look at that across the board. 

Right now Labor has great programs and the DoL Vets program 

under Assistant Secretary of VETS Jefferson, they do great things, 

but there is no collaboration between these agencies. 

We have a lot of great programs out there, so finding a way to 

get these interagencies working together, and hopefully at some 

point also bringing the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee and 

House Armed Services Committee back together again to begin addressing this as that seamless transition issue. 

There is grave concern over even the SPAWAR concept, because 

once again we are looking at a DoD/VA interagency agreement that 

has been broken in the past. So are we going to be stuck in the 

same situation where DoD didn’t provide VA with the necessary resources to fully implement and we end up with a he said she said 

game again in the future. 

So we are concerned about that, but hopefully we can look at creating this arm and having accountability with the new Under Secretary bringing all those programs under a common umbrella allowing it to start from the Military Entrance Processing station all 

the way through with this electronic record for life that then takes 

the individual through active duty, through the transition process 

into the economic, you know, whether it be education, going into 

small business, we could create really I think the proper mechanisms to succeed at this and really have some cost saving measures 

as well. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, thank you. I just have one final 

question, just a point of a clarification, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
26 

Mr. Madden, from you testimony. 

You stated that there are reports of veterans and their family members losing their future payments instead of the $750 reduction the VA promised for obtaining the $3,000 emergency payment. 

Can you just explain that a bit further for me. 

Mr. MADDEN. Can you ask the question one more time? I am 

sorry. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes. In your written testimony you had 

stated that there are some reports from veterans and their family 

members about losing future payments instead of the $750 reduction the VA promised for obtaining the $3,000 emergency payment. 

Mr. MADDEN. Originally they were told that they were going to lose their future payments as opposed to taking the $750 out, and 

that is what I was told. So if that is wrong I apologize, but—— 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Oh, no, I am not saying it is wrong, The 

staff and I weren’t entirely clear on—— 

Mr. MADDEN. Okay. I would be more than happy to get back with 

you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So if you could take that for the record. 

Mr. MADDEN. Certainly. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN [continuing]. And explain a little bit more 

some of the reports that you are hearing about. 

Mr. MADDEN. Certainly. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. 

[Mr. Madden subsequently followed up in a letter, dated October 

19, 2010, which appears on p. 90.] 

Mr. MADDEN. Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, thank you for the testimony, the 

ideas, and recommendations. I think that Mr. Overton, you used 

the appropriate term of unforeseen limitations. Some were foreseen, some were unforeseen limitations, unintended consequences, 

a complex program and compressed timetable. 

We just want to make sure that as we look at the types of upgrades that are necessary to meet the needs of all eligible veterans 

that we are taking the opportunity, as I think you all recognize, of 

streamlining and simplifying the program in a way consistent with 

moving toward the Long-Term Solution as well and not missing the 

opportunity as we also seek to enhance the benefits to serve more 

individuals and their families. 

Thank you for your testimony, thank you for your service to our 

Country and your ongoing service to our Nation’s veterans. Thank 

you. 

I now invite our third panel to the witness table. Joining us on 

our third panel is Captain Mark Krause, Department of Veterans 

Affairs Program Manager, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) Atlantic, and Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

Mr. Wilson is accompanied by the Honorable Roger Baker, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology at the United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Gentlemen, welcome back. I know you missed us as much as we 

miss you during August, but we are looking forward to the updates 

that you can provide the Subcommittee, as well as comments on 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
27 

the testimony of our prior panels and questions that the Ranking 

Member and I may have for you this afternoon. 

Mr. Krause, we will begin with you. Again, written statements 

have been made part of the record. We have heard a lot from our 

first two panels as it relates to not just sort of the ongoing state 

of affairs in implementing and administering the Post-9/11 GI Bill, 

the progress that many of the witnesses have identified that has 

been made to ongoing problems that we know persist. 

This Subcommittee has been very active in our oversight of the 

administration of the new program, we know how important the 

Long-Term Solution is. I believe Mr. Madden in response to my last 

question identified that we hope this will alleviate some of the 

problems in the lack of communication or some of the critical information that some of the veterans have been experiencing in their 

ability to navigate a system that I think we hope will alleviate 

some of the other problems that we know have been harder to rectify. 

Mr. Krause, I will turn it over to you first, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF CAPTAIN MARK KRAUSE, USN (RET.), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PROGRAM MANAGER, 

SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS CENTER ATLANTIC, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 

SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. 

ROGER W. BAKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY AND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARK KRAUSE 

Captain KRAUSE. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, 

Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the current status of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Chapter 33 Long-Term 

Solution. 

My testimony will address the current status of the Long-Term 

Solution, critical milestone completion, program challenges, future 

updates, and the ability of the Long-Term Solution to support future policy changes. 

The VA/SPAWAR Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution team delivered 

and deployed releases 1.0 and 2.0 this year on the planned critical 

milestone dates. 

All chapter 33 veteran claim examiners have been transitioned 

from the interim solution to the Long-Term Solution to process 

chapter 33 educational benefits claims. 

Since January 2010, the team has accomplished the following. 

Enabled the VA to deliver chapter 33 benefits via a centralized 

Web-based system that implements a flexible rules-based engine. 

This will allow the VA to implement future changes and enhancements to chapter 33 policy and legislation in a more timely and efficient manner. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
28 

The VA/SPAWAR Team successfully implemented Agile methodology within the VA and have established an effective, engaged, 

and collaborative governance process to prioritize capability development, resolve issues and make timely decisions. 

We have leveraged our Agile approach to implement additional 

functionality as reprioritzed by the VA. Examples include the Fry 

Amendment, Letter Generation, Fiscal Year 9/10 retro-active housing rate adjustments, significant interim solution data errors, data 

conversion, switching from the planned interface with the financial 

accounting system to the older benefits delivery network financial 

system, developing a user authentication solution due to the unavailability of the benefits enterprise platform, and assuming an 

expanded role in interface development with VA legacy systems. 

Over the last several months, the VA/SPAWAR Chapter 33 LongTerm Solution team has continued to peel back the onion to uncover and define more detailed chapter 33 requirements and processes. This discovery revealed a number of factors that increased 

the complexity and scope required by the Long-Term Solution. 

A summary of these discoveries included automating business 

rules and streamlining the process to adjudicate claims were more 

complex than originally anticipated. Converting and remediating 

data conversion errors from the interim solution into Chapter 33 

Long-Term Solution was more challenging than planned. Enhancing existing VA systems required to provide data to the Chapter 33 

Long-Term Solution has proven more difficult than expected. 

In the upcoming months, Long-Term Solution development will 

focus on providing system interfaces and capabilities to automate 

and streamline the claimant institution enrollment validation process, as well as initiating and providing chapter 33 payment instructions to the Department of Treasury. 

To date, all critical milestones have been met. We delivered on 

release 1.0 on 31 March, delivered on release 2.0 on 30 June. The 

Long-Term Solution functionality planned for each critical milestone was based on a limited understanding of the requirements 14 

months ago. On a biweekly basis, every 2 weeks at each sprint review, new requirements, user stories, functionality, and changes in 

scope are discussed and re-prioritized thru a detailed VA governance process. 

Since then, the Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution Agile process has 

continued to better define program requirements, revealing additional technical complexities during releases 1.0 and 2.0 and resolving those complexities. 

Due to the 4 extra weeks that were required to complete the data 

conversion and housing rate adjustment and the complexity of the 

Benefits Delivery Network (BDN), or the financial interface, we expect to deliver the VAONCE, which is essentially the VA online 

certification of enrollment data, interface on 30 September for user 

testing, and do not anticipate delivering the complete functionality 

planned for release 3.0, which is automating the financial transaction/authorization process currently required to authorize payments for claims and a financial interface with the BDN financial 

system, until the December 2010 time frame. The requirements for 

release 4.0 scheduled for December 2010, are still being defined. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
29 

Future updates to the Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution will be determined by VA leadership. 

Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution is a rules-based system that will 

support future changes to the program, some of which we heard requested briefly today, such as the expansion of benefits, changes to 

payment procedures, and changes to policy and law. 

The bottom line up front, Madam Chairwoman, is by the end of 

December we will have delivered the major functionality we promised, we will have the financial interface done, we will have the 

major automation of the financial processes that we promised done. 

We have another team now working on a veterans self-service capability in the E-Benefits portal. We are leveraging our folks, and 

we are also working on that project to deliver essentially to be able 

to view payment history, a claim status, and right now we are looking at the possibility of getting this by the end of December to 

allow you to change your personal information. 

So essentially, we still want to declare victory, as Mr. Baker has 

so often told us in that at the end of December and January on this 

project. 

And Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I am 

pleased to answer any questions you or any of the other Members 

of the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Captain Krause appears on p. 70.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Krause. 

Mr. Wilson. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth 

Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to provide you an update on VA’s implementation of the Post-9/11 

GI Bill. 

My testimony will address the current status of education claims 

processing for the fall 2010 enrollments and critical milestones for 

VA’s Long-Term Solution. 

Joining me today are the Honorable Roger W. Baker, Assistant 

Secretary for Information and Technology, and Mr. Mark Krause, 

VA Program Manager for SPAWAR, who has just discussed implementation of the Long-Term Solution. 

I am pleased to report that VA has made tremendous strides in 

delivering Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in a timely and accurate manner. We have also made significant progress in the development 

and deployment of our new processing and payment system. 

As of the end of August last year, VA had processed payments 

for only 8,185 students for the fall 2009 semester. For the current 

fall term, VA has already processed payments for more than 

135,000 students. The average time to process an enrollment certification in August was 10 days, down from 28 days 1 year ago. 

In June and August, we successfully deployed release 2.0 and 2.1 

of the Long-Term Solution. Through these deployments, we successfully converted over 600,000 chapter 33 claimant records from 

our interim processing system into the Long-Term Solution. 

We also added greater functionality to that originally planned for 

the Long-Term Solution. Its functionality was expanded to enable 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
30 

payment of retroactive housing allowance adjustments for those individuals eligible for the increased rates in 2010. 

Additionally, the Long-Term Solution was improved to automatically generate letters to individuals to provide them better information on their benefits. 

The Long-Term Solution was also enhanced to facilitate claims 

processing for the Fry Scholarship recipients. 

VA is now processing all Post-9/11 GI Bill claims in this new system, thereby replacing the interim system and its associated manual job aids. 

Our work is far from over, and as the Members know, we continue to experience challenges. We have been unable to deliver all 

the functionality in accordance with our timeline we developed 2 

years ago. Although we are processing all Post-9/11 GI Bill claims 

in the Long-Term Solution, functionality to automate key portions 

of the process has been delayed. 

The interfaces with the VAONCE Certification of Enrollment and 

the Benefits Delivery Payment System previously scheduled for 

September 30th, 2010, are now scheduled for October 30th of 2010, 

and December 31st, 2010, respectively. 

These delays are due to increased functionality needed to improve immediate claims processing capabilities, challenges with 

conversion of the data from the interim system, and a more complete understanding of the complexities of the interface with BDN. 

Additionally, by working with our key stakeholders, we continue 

to learn what is needed and make positive changes. We are working to improve our debt-management processes, ensuring that refunded payments are accurately credited to overpayments, and ensuring that overpayments are handled in an effective manner, thus 

minimizing negative impacts on students’ pursuit of their educational goals. 

Our guiding principle for system development and deployment 

has been, and will continue to be, to ensure that the deployment 

schedule and delivered functionality do not have a negative impact 

on our ability to pay veterans. 

Additionally, building upon previous outreach strategies, the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill has been featured at the September 10th and 

11th NASCAR events in Richmond, Virginia, in addition to other 

outreach activities we have incorporated. The race weekend was officially called the Post-9/11 GI Bill Weekend at Richmond International Raceway. I will talk about this more in our Power Point 

presentation. 

While recognizing we will not meet all of the key milestones in 

our aggressive development and deployment schedule of the LTS, 

VA is nevertheless proud of its achievements in overcoming significant challenges and successfully transitioning from an inadequate 

temporary system to a state-of-the-art processing system that 

promises to deliver significantly improved automation and consistency. 

VA has shown dramatic improvement over the last year in its 

ability to deliver timely and accurate benefits derived from this important legislation. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my oral statement. As requested we have provided more detail in the form of a Power Point 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
31 

presentation. I would like to move to that unless you or other 

Members have questions at this point. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. That is fine. About how long is the 

PowerPoint? 

Mr. WILSON. I can make it as fast as you would like. It is about 

15 minutes normal speed. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Let us try to do it in 5 to 10 minutes. 

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. The first slide. Next slide. This slide provides a 

good graphic representation of where we are at from a claims processing perspective. 

As I mentioned, last year at this time we processed and paid 

about 8,000 claimants. We have paid, this chart shows 150,000, it 

was prepared more recently than my oral testimony, so we are in 

very good shape from a claims processing standpoint. 

And I want to emphasize though that we do not consider ourselves out of the woods. We are at the high watermark for the fall 

enrollment period, there is a lot of work that continues to need to 

be done, but we are in obviously much better shape than we were 

at this time last fall. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. We have been able to accomplish this success 

through a lot of hard work from our staff at the regional processing 

offices. Our daily productivity for chapter 33 claims the 9.5 claims 

per person per day, and for chapter 30 claims it is 25.4 claims per 

day, which does exceed our current goal. Basically we are processing in excess of 10,000 claims a day at this point. Beginning last 

fall, we were processing about 2,000 claims a day. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. This slide provides some basic information concerning where we are at in terms of payments. We have paid $4.7 

billion to about 340,000 individuals or to their schools. We have 

numbers there that show the split between private for profit, private non-profit, and public institutions. We have also in that total 

number we have paid $41.7 million under the Yellow Ribbon program. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. This slide, it is a little bit busy, but it provides a 

general overview of the functionality that was originally envisioned 

for our four core releases versus the functionality that was ultimately delivered. 

Basically at this point we expected to have the functionality that 

would allow us to interface with our systems thereby allowing us 

to begin automating the process. As I described in my oral testimony, those are due to be released now in October and December. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
32 

Mr. WILSON. The causes of the LTS delays, I believe I talked 

about that in my oral testimony, so I won’t go over that in detail 

again. 

One of the specific questions we were asked, Madam Chair, is 

how can Congress help? And there are two points that we have 

made on this slide. 

Number one, legislative action could potentially harm our ability 

to continue to develop the Long-Term Solution, so we, as has always been the case, look to continue being actively involved with 

you as we are. 

Also in terms of timeline what we have put on this slide is looking at a potential of 24 or 36 months to incorporate significant 

changes, if significant changes are called for in our IT development. 

We can talk about that more or Mr. Baker can talk about that 

more in detail if you chose to do so. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. Outreach. Outreach has been a major part of what 

we have been doing over the last year. We have developed a major 

outreach strategy to begin not reaching just the veterans that we 

have been reaching already and the servicemembers, but their family members as well. We have undertaken that in a multifaceted 

approach, we have had a lot of information on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

appear in print media, radio, et cetera, we have also developed 

some national events, worked with national organizations in a way 

that we haven’t done before, and we are very pleased with what 

we are beginning to see. We think there is a lot of potential, but 

I will talk about that in a little more detail. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. Recently at the Air Guard 400 in Richmond over 

last weekend, we partnered with TRG Motor Sports, Kevin Buckler 

and TRG Motor Sports, as well as Land and Castle, the driver of 

car 71, to sponsor a Post-9/11 GI Bill car in the race. We sponsored 

the car in that race, we also sponsored the events at the weekend. 

We have had a tremendous amount of interest in that. We are 

still collecting initial information concerning getting our message 

out. The folks both at TRG, as well as Land and Mr. Castle, 

worked very hard. They have a lot of connection with the program 

themselves and showed a lot of commitment to getting the message 

out. 

Our Web site traffic for new people coming to our Web site has 

been up 11 percent since that event. So obviously we got a lot more 

work to do, we are learning a lot, but it is one more potential for 

us to get information out on the program. 

Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. NASCAR. We have been asked why NASCAR? For 

NASCAR the demographics are very good for us. About a third of 

the 75 million NASCAR fans are veterans servicemembers or have 

close family members that are, so it worked very well for us. 

Just anecdotally, my staff that was at the event, probably 90 percent of the people that approached us were in those categories. It 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
33 

was a very good demographic for us. We also had a lot of coverage, 

potential coverage with the viewership. 

The Air Guard 400 was broadcast live on ABC, as well as on the 

Armed Forces network across the globe with about 6.6 million 

viewers worldwide. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. We also at the Air Guard 400 kicked off a series 

that we are calling ‘‘My Story.’’ We have put together a series of 

short clips with the generous donation of time from some of our 

veterans who have gone on camera and told us what the impact of 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill has been on their lives. Those were broadcast 

live at the event. We have all four of them done now and will be 

using those for public service announcements, other opportunities 

to get the message out. They are very, very good. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WILSON. We have also been fortunate enough to work with 

an individual by the name of Mike Rowe, who hosts a show called 

Dirty Jobs on the History Channel. Mr. Rowe has done a public 

service announcement for us. He focuses largely on the trades. Has 

a very high interest in the trades. He was very generous with his 

time, and we have had some success with that as well. So we are 

very pleased with that as well. 

Next slide. 

That concludes the presentation. I would be happy to answer 

questions that you or other Members may have, Madam. 

[The prepared statement and referenced slides of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 71.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Let me start, if 

you can go to slide eight. Sorry, we don’t need to go back. This is 

the slide as to what Congress can do. 

As you know, I think our Subcommittee counsel and staff have 

worked closely to try to keep this Long-Term Solution on track, and 

in some of the proposals. I know that there were early efforts to 

try to make some changes, and we understood the compressed 

timetable you were on both short term, long term, but in my estimation some legislative action actually has the potential to positively impact the full deployment of the Long-Term Solution. Would 

you agree. 

Mr. WILSON. I think the potential exists depending on what that 

would be, yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. So the legislative action has the 

potential to either positively or negatively impact. 

Mr. WILSON. That is an accurate statement, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Can you give me an example of 

what a significant system change would be in any of the pending 

proposals to make improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

Mr. WILSON. I would like to ask Mr. Baker to address that, if he 

could, please. 

Mr. BAKER. From a technical standpoint, things that we can 

change that allow us to just change the rules engine can be done 

very quickly. Minor things that allow processing or that say in this 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
34 

case pay a certain amount versus a variable amount. Those sort of 

things will be very quick. 

If we have to go in and add an entire new feature to the system, 

some substantial change in the way that the system anticipates 

processing the benefits, that would require getting into the software and making code changes. That is going to take quite a bit 

longer from our perspective. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Are you able to provide a concrete example of that significant system change from any of the pending bills, 

particularly H.R. 5933. 

Mr. BAKER. I apologize, I am not familiar enough with the bills 

to do that. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. 

Mr. BAKER. I don’t know if Mr. Krause or Mr. Wilson can. 

Captain KRAUSE. Ma’am, one of the—— 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. How about the Senate version? How 

about the S. 3447. 

Captain KRAUSE. From our point of view, I have talked to my engineers and it is all about the data. I have a lot of experience with 

Reserve databases and Reserve systems from the Navy side. A lot 

of their data systems are 28, 30-year old Cobalt systems, they don’t 

play nice in a new environment, so it is all about if we can get the 

data interfaces and get access to that data, and then if the data 

is clean. 

I know VA struggled for years with DoD data and not being 

clean and having to—I know Keith has told me stories about having to struggle with that. Well the Reserve data has its problems 

too. So it is all about the data. We just have to work with the National Guard folks and the Reserve folks to make sure that we access the right database, the right authoritative sources, and get 

that data and then clean it up. 

So not an overwhelming challenge, but it will be a challenge. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So it is more the concern that I think Mr. 

Overton identified as it relates to the ongoing concerns between 

sharing of information between DoD and VA into this new system 

than it is any perhaps proposed legislative change that could cause 

more of the problem. 

Captain KRAUSE. Right. I mean the Reserve systems and the active-duty systems at least in Navy and the Army and the Air Force, 

they have all been separate and they need to come together and be 

integrated, which was what DIMHRS (Defense Integrated Military 

Human Resources System) was all about. So essentially that has 

to happen. And because it hasn’t happened yet I think the VA is 

going to have to, and myself supporting them, our team supporting 

them, we are going to have to go out and find those data sources 

and work with them. 

So it will just add another complexity to it, but it is handleable. 

Mr. WILSON. If I can add to that a little bit. The degree of change 

matters a great deal I believe from our perspective, and I will try 

to come up with a couple of examples. 

If we were to create a new category of entitled individuals, for 

example, and they did involve Guard service, for example, that 

could potentially be fairly complex, because we wouldn’t even 

know, for example, whether the eligibility information we need to 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
35 

determine entitlement is actually captured somewhere. So that 

would be an issue. 

Looking at a little differently though and saying that we create 

a different tier of benefit. We want to create, for example, a 15 percent tier of benefit. That would be different because we would be 

getting all the feed information the same, we would just be adding 

another slice to the pie. 

So just as an example something like that might be easier to absorb. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. On page three of your slide when we 

have over 150,000 of the Chapter 33 veterans paid for 2010 that 

includes both from the spring and from the fall semester. 

Mr. WILSON. Those are unique fall enrollments for this current 

enrollment period. That was the information I captured on this 

slide. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Do you have any estimates on how 

many of those 150,801 might have received overpayments. 

Mr. WILSON. I don’t have that information available, but I would 

be happy to look at it for the record and provide it for the record. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is unable to determine the number 

of overpayments associated with the 150,801 Veterans paid under the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill when slide 3 was prepared. However, the average number of 

education overpayments created on a monthly basis for all education programs 

in FY 2009 was 9,576. That average, not considering advance payments for 

chapter 33, rose to 23,505 for FY 2010. The average monthly dollar amount of 

overpayment established during FY 2009 for all education programs was 

$10,040,925. That average rose to $26,360,574 for FY 2010. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill program pays students’ tuition and fees, a books and supplies stipend, and, in most cases, a monthly housing allowance. In the event a 

student withdraws from classes after these payments are made, an overpayment occurs in each of these benefit payments. Because the amounts paid to 

and on behalf of Veterans under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are significantly higher 

than in previous programs and include tuition and fee payments covering the 

entire term, the number and the amount of overpayments have increased. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Or at least look at the trend—— 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Because this is, as we have discussed, a 

significant problem and we would like to see some improvement as 

it relates to dealing with that problem. 

And that leads me to the question that came up from 

Ms. DesLauriers, and that is this issue of veterans who participated in the 3,000 emergency payment last November and then 

they entered a repayment plan and were automatically sent to 

Debt Management Center after 180 days. And why is this happening? How are we going to fix this problem? And will these veterans’ accounts be cleared from the Debt Management Center. 

Mr. WILSON. They will be cleared. We are aware that there are 

situations where that is occurring. When we are made aware of 

those situations we put those individuals directly in contact with 

the Debt Management Center and we work it out manually on a 

case-by-case basis, but it should not be happening as a category of 

cases, and we are working hard on that. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Boozman. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
36 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Because of all these concerns, what are the impediments to implementing a temporary moratorium on the chapter 33 collections? 

Mr. WILSON. There are some technical challenges with doing 

that. I understand the interest in doing this from a conceptual perspective. We have had some initial discussions within VA on that. 

We do have technical concerns as to whether or not we could make 

what would be needed would be code changes and whether we 

could make those without creating additional risk within the system. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. And again, I have the same concerns as the Chair, 

the question that she brought up and we will probably want to 

send some additional questions over, but I guess really the bottom 

line is we have the current overpayment process, and the question 

is, how do we adjust that? How do we fix it to ensure that veterans 

for whom schools who return funds to the VA are not subjected to 

the collection efforts? 

And you mentioned that, but I guess, again, I pose the question 

again just for emphasis on how important this is. I mean this is 

something that we just simply have to get fixed and cleared up. 

And so whatever efforts that we need to expend in that way, it is 

just—I want you to know how important we all feel like. That just 

simply has to be fixed. 

Mr. WILSON. Dr. Merten did a very good job I think of laying out 

the challenges and the different players, and he laid out three different players involved with this, VA and the schools and the student, and I can’t disagree at all with what he said. I believe he is 

right on point. 

I would argue though that there is actually more players than 

that involved within VA and within the schools. There are entities 

within those establishments that are involved with different points 

of the process as well. Within the schools, you have the finance offices and the certifying officials that often are not in the same location, may or may not, you know, be working well together. The 

same is within VA. We have the Debt Management Center involved, we have the regional processing offices involved, and then 

you have the student obviously involved in the entire process as 

well. 

Every time there is a change in enrollment, for example, a school 

will have a certifying official send us a change in the enrollment, 

report the change of enrollment at some point during that person’s 

process workload, separate from that the finance office will be refunding money, not necessarily at the same time it is being reported to VA, and then within VA we are processing that work as 

it comes into the RPO, crediting it, having that information connected with the Debt Management Center, and again, the veteran 

involved with all of this, and it happens every time there is a 

change in enrollment. 

There is obviously thousands of certifying officials, thousands of 

debt management cases. There are a lot of cooks in the kitchen, 

and from my perspective that is the core of the problem, is there 

are a lot of people involved in something, and it is very difficult. 

We are working very hard, the schools are working very hard, 

there is just a lot of moving parts in this. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
37 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, thank you all for being here. 

In follow up, we probably have some other things that we would 

like to ask, and then perhaps maybe we could have some sort of 

a deadline as to when they get back in regard to this, you know, 

the true problems in implementing some sort of temporary whatever. 

But, you have kind of sketched over that as far as the problems, 

but I guess we would really like to know specifically, what, because 

the reality is we have just got to fix this problem. 

So if you can get back to us and staff with some more concrete 

things I think that would be very helpful. 

Mr. WILSON. I would be happy to do that. We have had a series 

of meetings with schools. Just yesterday we received the latest documents referring to our meetings and we are in the process now 

of setting up another group of meetings. So we would be happy to 

do that. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

Question: What are the specific problems in ensuring a consistent and consolidated message to schools and students about education benefits? 

Response: We are committed to providing the best possible service to our veterans. As part of this commitment, VA has employees who are responsible for 

maintaining direct contact with participating schools to ensure that a consistent 

message is communicated. VA’s education liaison representatives (ELRs) are 

the primary points of contact for school officials. ELRs have a wide range of responsibilities in support of education benefits programs and work closely with 

school officials to inform them of changes in VA policies and procedures. 

VA provides written policy guidance to all four Regional Processing Offices 

(RPOs) and conducts uniform training on a regular basis to ensure all RPOs 

and employees at the National Call Center are receiving the same information. 

In addition, RPO conference calls are conducted to address any training, policy, 

or claims processing issues. 

VA continues to send representatives to professional and educational conferences to discuss the Post-9/11 GI Bill, hold training for school certifying officials who work with veterans at schools, and update the GI Bill Web site to provide the most comprehensive information available. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you very much. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. Krause, if the critical milestones that were previously discussed in past Subcommittee hearings were set over a year ago, 

why are we just now in the process of defining release 4.0? 

Captain KRAUSE. Madam Chairwoman, throughout this project 

we have used the Agile methodology and we have built as we go. 

We had high level requirements when we started a year ago, but 

we never had the detailed requirements. We literally do them in 

many cases a month to 3 weeks in advance. That is how the Agile 

process works. We get the sprint planning session together, we get 

the subject matter experts together, we define the user stories, get 

them detailed enough so the developers can build them, and then 

in 2 weeks they have a tested developed product that they show 

the subject matter experts, they like it, and then we deploy it at 

the next milestone. 

But about a year ago, we came under Mr. Baker’s Project Management Accountability System (PMAS). It is his system where we 

do deliveries at least every 6 months—in this case every 3 

months—and it is inflexible schedule dates, flexible functionality 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
38 

requirements dates. That is how he is running his software IT 

projects, that is how he is turning them around. 

So on any given milestone date, you know, if we—for instance 

this summer in order to protect the fall enrollment we focused unexpectedly on going back and automating the retroactive housing 

payments and doing some of the work needed to be done to automate the date of conversion so that the claim examiners didn’t 

have to manually deal with hundreds of thousands of claims, they 

could focus on the fall enrollment. 

So from a business perspective from Mr. Wilson’s perspective it 

was all about protecting the fall enrollment and making whatever 

adjustments had to be made to the IT systems, even if they weren’t 

planned, if they were out of scope we had to do it in order to protect the fall enrollment. 

So that was what this summer was about. And that is why some 

of the functionality that we have delivered has been off a little bit 

on the milestones, which is permitted under the PMAS system, the 

Program Management Accountability System, as long as you make 

the dates. 

Now on this milestone three date, as we have briefed we have 

going to deliver the VAONCE interface, but it is going to be available for testing on the 30th, it won’t be deployed on the 30th, so 

we missed a date by 3 weeks because of some of the additional data 

conversion. But at the end of October, we will deliver the enrollment data, which will automatically populate the screens for the 

claim examiners so they can do their work more efficiently and 

quickly. 

You know, we had to switch from going to the financial accountability accounting system (FAS) for the VA, FAS is what it is 

called, a modern system. We had to switch—in the summer Mr. 

Wilson made the decision, and Mr. Baker, that we had to go to the 

older more reliable BDN system. Well that was a change and we 

had to adjust to that. 

And so for that reason because of the additional scope we did this 

summer and the concerns about the complexity of a financial system and the importance of getting it right the first time, we delayed it a few months to make sure we get it right, and we do all 

the additional testing the VA wants to do in November. 

But as I briefed before, the bottom line is as we promised in December we will have finished all the major functionality that was 

expected from us. We will have a basis user interface or veteran 

self-service capability which can be built on and expanded, you 

know, part of the life cycle of the program. 

So that is the plan, that is where we are. And we have tried to 

keep the staff, your staff, informed as we have gone along what the 

functionality of each of the releases have been. And when we saw 

ourselves switching that functionality we made sure that we did 

brief the staff within a week of making sure that we had our ducks 

in a row before we talked to them. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Will you and your team continue to be 

involved after December? 

Captain KRAUSE. We will. It looks like the plan is for us continue 

to be involved after December, yes. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
39 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. As we continue to peel back the onion, 

by the end of the spring semester next year, are we going to have 

a complete interface functionality for the veteran? 

Captain KRAUSE. I think you will be working on this application—I mean an application as I mentioned the last time we met 

in January, these legacy systems last 30 years. You are always 

modernizing them, you are always doing a change, the users are 

always saying well I want this letter generation to say this, not 

this. You have to update it and fix it for me. 

So releases I think will be continual on this regardless of whether SPAWAR does it or not for the next 10, 15 years. It is part of 

the life cycle of a software program. 

Typically 80 percent of the cost of a software application is its 

life cycle cost which is the out years, which is after you deploy. 

So I think we are just going along with that plan. And as the 

users come up with additional functionality they want in the 

spring, somebody is going have to do that work. It doesn’t have to 

be us, it can be whoever does the work. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Do you believe that this VA has acquired 

sufficient technical expertise throughout this process to take it over 

on a day-to-day basis after December, after May? 

Captain KRAUSE. As Mr. Baker briefed before, there will have to 

be a transition. We are looking at transitioning some of the things 

back to the VA sooner. 

For instance, the hosting at Terremark, we are trying to transition that back to Mr. Baker’s team in the February time frame. We 

are working with the technical acquisition center to do that. 

We are looking at moving the training back to the VA to get that 

off our plates so the VA can take over that. 

The OPTs, they will take over the operations of the system. A lot 

of that is some of the minor changes. 

We are interested in transitioning back to the VA. And do I think 

they have the expertise. Under Mr. Baker and his leadership I 

think they have acquired that technical expertise, at least in my 

opinion very quickly over the last year. They have a lot of good people that can take some of this on. 

So it is all about the transition and working with Mr. Baker to 

eventually do that. 

Mr. BAKER. If I could comment on that. We are going to focus 

on having the expertise from an operations and maintenance standpoint. We will continue to rely on SPAWAR for the heavy development. 

And I think Mr. Krause is right, by the end of this year we will 

have met the objectives we laid out originally, but that was 2 years 

ago, and change has occurred and there are more things we would 

like to do on that system. 

So we are planning right now for a smaller, but still substantial 

budget for development during 2011. 

I think your point relative to the Web site is spot on. One of the 

things about user interfaces is it is impossible to get them right the 

first time. You want to get them out, see what the users say about 

them and then make changes that make them more friendly, add 

functionality and add information to them. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
40 

I think we will see that occur with the Web site, we will see that 

occur with the interface that the claims processors use as we go 

along. I think all that is appropriate. 

At some point, this system will have settled down and just be 

day in, day out operations and maintenance, but I don’t think that 

will be until late 2011. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So any legislative changes we may make 

would delay that further is your concern unless we manage this 

from the legislative side effectively to do the streamlining that may 

make some of the hurdles easier to get across. 

Mr. BAKER. The major thing I believe we would ask is in looking 

at the various proposals we can do a quick analysis of whether or 

not they can be implemented through the rules engine or whether 

they would take software changes. And it may well be that we can 

suggest things that would allow them to be implemented in the 

rules engine versus a software change, so that would be a very productive piece. 

But my anticipation with any large piece of software is there are 

going to be legislative changes. Just like user interfaces, laws are 

seldom perfect the first time that they are passed, and I think 

working together will just make the program and software better. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I have a few other questions. But you 

had said one of the things to protect the fall enrollment. Is this 

part of why you did the interface with the benefits delivery network instead of the financial accounting system, and are you ultimately going to interface with the financial accounting system? 

Mr. BAKER. We will ultimately interface with the financial accounting system. FAS was not ready. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. When will it be? 

Mr. BAKER. I don’t have that. As a matter of fact one of the fundamental drivers for us to decide to go to BDN was exactly that 

question. We have more ability to determine where BDN and the 

Long-Term Solution are than we do on the FAS side of the business 

in the vets net area. That has been more problematic for us. I 

would say we are still working that area. 

We took substantial risk out of the program by deciding that we 

would go to BDN, because we knew it was available and that we 

would go to FAS when it was available. We knew it would be able 

to process these, however it is not there yet. 

Mr. WILSON. Now in terms of protecting the fall enrollment 

though, an important factor there was the ability to automate those 

retroactive BAH payments. Because if that had not been done successfully, we would have been in the position of having to manually 

adjust 153,000 awards while we are doing that. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, please continue to keep us updated 

then as it relates to the FAS system, what the transition and the 

interface will mean for the Long-Term Solution. I understand why 

you made that decision, but I have some ongoing concerns about 

our timetable and when the FAS will be as reliable as BDN and 

what the improvements will be to the long term system if you can 

move to the other interface, right? 

Mr. WILSON. I will say one of the things I have learned in watching the metrics of our operational systems is that BDN is a very 

stable system. It has been in existence for a long period of time. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
41 

While our long term is not BDN, I am much less, if you will, 

fearful of that system today than I was a year and a half ago when 

I first came in. You know, its reputation is that it is an old system, 

but when you watch its performance day in and day out it has been 

very stable for us. So I have come to trust that system more than 

I did in the beginning. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, would you still be able to use that 

system as a back up if you were to transition and interface with 

the newer FAS system and there were problems? I mean do we 

have that option? 

Mr. BAKER. They are substantially different systems. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So we have a risk whenever we make the 

transition. 

Mr. BAKER. At some point we will cut over. I don’t see that as 

an unusual risk of moving from payment system A to payment system B. 

The data conversion is going to be much like what we just went 

through and that will be where the risk is. Most substantially it 

is in that data conversion, making sure the payments come over 

correctly. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, that was part of the delay, right? 

The complexity of the data conversion. 

Mr. BAKER. That is exactly right. 

Captain KRAUSE. Yes, ma’am. From the interim solution to the 

Long-Term Solution, Mr. Baker is talking about now an upcoming 

data conversion from BDN, which has a whole different data model 

into a new system, FAS, which is a completely different data 

model, different data structures. There will be a similar challenge 

there. 

Mr. BAKER. But I think it should be said that we are doing that 

type of conversion on a regular basis as we move veterans from 

other programs out of BDN and into FAS as part of our transition. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Baker, can you tell us how the LTS is being 

used as the gateway to the VBMS and what is the anticipated cost 

of the VBMS? 

Mr. BAKER. Of VBMS, the Veterans Benefit Management System? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BAKER. In the spring as we looked at the compensation and 

pension benefits, if you will, what I recognized was that there are 

a lot of similarities between what Compensation and Pension 

(C&P) does and what Education does. At that point, we had gained 

enough confidence in the architecture, the rules engine and the 

work flow that were being built for the education system that it 

made sense to have the same underlying architecture for the education benefits and for the compensation and pension benefits so 

that some day I could have one single system that actually just 

processed all benefits. 

That is probably what I would refer to as the gateway from that 

standpoint. In other words, I have proven it works here, let us do 

the same thing again in my harder one. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
42 

The life cycle for VBMS, right now I would tell you is in the range of $500 million. We are still defining as we go along, we are 

moving to an Agile methodology for that as well. 

Again, we have had success with Agile and we want to use that 

on VBMS, but we are still wrestling with how to convert what used 

to be a very heavy process system. The old paperless process was 

built around defining all the requirements then building it for 3 

years, delivering it to the customer and hoping they like it. We now 

use a much lighter process which is what we used in the GI Bill 

benefit system. 

From a scaling standpoint, it kind of makes sense. If you look at the GI Bill as roughly $100 million, C&P is much more than five 

times the size of education, and it is a much more complex benefit 

than education. 

So the life cycle cost still feels about right to me there, but I am 

only doing it from a ballpark standpoint because we really haven’t 

nailed that directly in. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. Wilson, I will just submit some additional questions for you 

as it relates to the concerns that we have heard about the Call 

Center, some of the inconsistencies that veterans continue to suffer 

through, and a couple questions relating to the VA’s GI Bill benefits estimator versus what IAVA has put together and how familiar 

you are with their calculator. And we have just had some ongoing 

concerns as it relates to the reliability of the information some of 

the veterans are receiving. 

But I want to thank each of you, all of our witnesses on the panels today. I know that a lot of folks have been putting in a lot of 

hard work in implementing the VA’s IT systems on a compressed 

timetable. I know you have had to make some adjustments, I know 

you have done your best to keep us apprised of some decisions that 

you have had to make to try to keep to certain objectives that do 

have the veteran as the primary focus in trying to manage expectations. 

As you have made process, there is a lot more work to be done, 

and the potential of other changes that we would like to make on 

the legislative side, whether that happens this Congress or not remains to be seen, but you know of some broad interest in trying 

to move in that direction. 

But I know it has been challenging to implement a very complex, 

very comprehensive program. I know as Mr. Krause you said that 

the data is the key and that is in part what concerns us as it relates to DoD. As you said, the Reserve component issues, and I 

think one of the witnesses from the earlier panel had mentioned 

the need to move to sort of the life records system, but we are a 

ways away from that. 

We will continue to plug away and keep our noses to the grindstone to continue to try to make progress, not just on some of the 

ongoing issues as you are working with the short-term interim solution, but what comes online with the new releases on the LongTerm Solution. 

Again, thank you all, I thank the Ranking Member and our Committee staff, and we will take these suggestions and recommendaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
43 

tions from our panelists today under consideration and continue to 

move this forward in a way that is good for our Nation’s veterans 

and their families. 

Thank you, and the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(44) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, 

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

During the 110th Congress, we successfully passed the Post-9/11 GI Bill to ensure 

that today’s veterans are afforded equitable benefits similar to those afforded to veterans that served during World War II. Furthermore, with the leadership of Representative Chet Edwards of Texas, we successfully passed the Marine Gunnery 

Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to provide education benefits to the dependents of the men and women who passed away due to injuries sustained in support 

of missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

While these legislative accomplishments are significant, we must continue to provide the needed oversight while addressing the shortfalls of existing education programs to assure that student veterans receive their benefits in a timely manner 

without delay or undue hardship. 

To take another step toward that goal today, I hope this hearing can focus on several critical issues related to the Post-9/11 GI Bill program: 

• The ongoing effort to successfully implement the long-term solution to ensure 

that the VA’s Information Technology systems are robust enough to efficiently 

manage the program. 

• The current status of the program as we begin the Fall 2010 school semester. 

• A discussion of what changes need to be made to the program in order to better meet the needs of eligible veterans. 

Some of you may be aware that yesterday the full Committee successfully passed 

H.R. 5360, the Housing, Employment, and Living Programs for Veterans Act of 

2010, otherwise known as the HELP Veterans Act which is fully paid for without 

placing a cost burden on the taxpayers. This bill seeks to provide a number of important improvements to VA education benefits, including increasing the flight 

training allowance for Chapter 30 recipients; reauthorizing and extending the recently expired veteran work-study program; and increasing the amount of reporting 

fees payable to educational institutions that enroll veterans receiving educational 

assistance. 

I look forward to advancing this bipartisan bill as soon as time on the House floor 

is identified. I also look forward to working with my colleagues to consider other 

legislative proposals that seek to address the current needs of our Nation’s veterans. 

One such legislative proposal is H.R. 5933, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, which was introduced by Rep. Walt Minnick. 

I know several of our witnesses have referenced this legislation today and I look 

forward to learning more about how the proposals in that legislation, as well as 

those included in similar and related legislation, could potentially impact the Post9/11 GI Bill program and its implementation. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking 

Republican Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Good afternoon. 

Madam Chair, I appreciate the excellent testimonies submitted for this hearing, 

especially the administrative issues raised by the schools. It is clear that while not 

perfect, the level of benefits paid to veterans and to schools on their behalf is excellent. Unfortunately, administration of those benefits has not met the same standard 

because as VA and our staff noted in several meetings before passage as part of a 

defense supplement, the program is significantly more complex than any of its predecessors. Despite some early missteps, I am fully aware of the effort VA’s staff has 

put into developing the long-term solution and I thank them for their work. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
45 

One of the basic difficulties is the wide variation in how public institutions in 50 

states and the territories are funded and managed and how that impacts VA’s implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We are now entering the second year of the 

program and I am very concerned about issues surrounding the management of 

overpayments. VA’s basic position is that the veteran is responsible for returning 

any overpayment to VA and that schools should send overpayments to the veteran 

and the veteran send them to VA. This seems to be an unnecessarily bureaucratic 

process that also entails significant opportunity for less than optimal results. 

We are also hearing about difficulties when schools send money directly back to 

VA as well as VA’s concerns about how some schools do not identify the veterans 

whose accounts should be credited for returned overpayments and the resulting attempts by VA to collect overpayments from veterans. Perhaps Madam Chair, it is 

time for a temporary moratorium on chapter 33 collections until VA and the schools 

get the rules for handling overpayments straightened out. 

I yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Walt Minnick 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for allowing me to join this hearing today. I would also like 

to thank our panel of representatives from the American Legion, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Veterans of Modern Warfare, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. I thank them for their military service and for their insight into what 

must be done to improve and simplify the new GI Bill which this Congress passed 

with strong bi-partisan support last year. 

I’d like to make a few brief remarks about the importance of this process and this 

bill, H.R. 5933, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act. 

In 1945 the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs conducted a lengthy hearing 

to review the effectiveness of the first GI Bill which was intended to give returning 

World War II veterans a college education in return for their service in saving the 

Nation from foreign aggression. As we are doing today, members of that Committee 

listened to veterans’ groups request upgrades to the first version of the bill so that 

the benefits would be extended to things like vocational schools and correspondence 

courses. 

And now, two generations later, we are doing the same thing today. Just as the 

WW II GI Bill was upgraded to help educate what is often referred to as the ‘‘greatest generation,’’ we must upgrade and improve the new GI Bill to make it workable 

so it can fully satisfy the educational needs of a new generation of returning veterans. As a veteran myself of the Vietnam Era, I have many friends who volunteered to serve in that war so they could go to college after they left the military 

and with their GI benefits obtain the education necessary to launch successful civilian careers. 

Having listened to many veteran service organizations and veterans from my 

home state of Idaho and elsewhere, I have introduced H.R. 5933 to offer the comprehensive improvements needed to make the new GI Bill fill the needs of this generation’s returning veterans. 

To provide a brief example, students enrolling in an excellent private college in 

my district, Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, Idaho, will directly benefit 

from this bill in several ways. By raising the maximum tuition cap to $20,000 per 

year, H.R. 5933 will significantly increase the tuition benefits available for veterans 

attending Northwest Nazarene—and other excellent, but expensive, private colleges. 

The bill will also afford a living allowance to veterans opting to pursue their degrees online—a benefit they were previously denied. It will also reimburse travel 

costs for distance learners and includes a new $1,000 allowance for increasingly expensive student books, hard copy and electronic. This bill will also make the educational benefits available for those veterans electing to pursue vocational education 

or other technical training. 

My offices in Idaho and Washington have listened to stories shared by veterans 

who have been unable to take full advantage of the new GI Bill’s benefits. Benefits 

Congress intended to confer with last year’s legislation. Many others have had their 

benefits reduced by unnecessarily limiting regulations. 

To fulfill the promise we make to today’s young people who volunteer to put their 

lives in harm’s way to serve in the military and preserve our way of life, we much 

provide them with the education they need after their military service to be successful in today’s high tech world. This bill makes the corrections to last year’s landmark GI Bill required for us to redeem this promise. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
46 

In closing I’d like to thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin for her support in this 

effort and very much look forward to working with her, Chairman Filner, the Ranking Member and my Republican colleagues in moving this bill through to passage 

in the remaining days of this Congress. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Faith DesLauriers, Legislative 

Director, National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Concerns NAVPA hears from veterans regarding their educational benefits: 

• Students pursuing their education through Distance Learning should have 

the same eligibility for housing stipends as students attending what is defined as in-residence training. 

• Retired and/or separated veterans, who earned and are otherwise eligible for 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill, have voiced their extreme disappointment in being denied the ability to transfer their entitlement to their dependents. 

• Veterans have voiced their concern that the ability to pursue their educational endeavors are restricted to that which is deemed by congress to be 

traditional. 

• Students don’t understand why VA distinguishes between tuition and fees 

with different caps for each rather than combining them into one maximum 

• Students are concerned that the VA remains unable to credit refunds made 

by the schools to their accounts. 

• Veterans are receiving letters from the Debt Management Center although 

these students are current with the payment plans negotiated with DMC in 

an effort to repay the emergency advance payments from fall 2009. 

Feedback NAVPA has from schools: 

• There is a critical need for consistent guidance as to the correct procedures 

for returning or refunding payments, as well the assurance that funds returned to the VA will in fact, be credited to veteran’s debts/overpayments. 

• Many students who access their education benefits are placed at a financial 

disadvantage because of DVA’s policy to count class enrollment sessions 

versus term enrollment periods. 

• It is imperative that an efficient communication mechanism be established 

between schools and the VA. 

• Inconsistent guidance to schools among and between RPOs and ELRs continues to be problematic. 

• Responsibilities associated with this program have increased the processing 

time for each claim at the school level approximately 300 percent yet institutions continue to be compensated at the rate of $7 for each student enrolled 

in most VA educational benefits, a rate that has not changed in over 30 years. 

• Reinstate the customer service units at each of the RPO’s specifically to work 

with Veterans’ Program Administrators. 

Improvements to Chapter 33 that NAVPA believes are needed: 

• GI Bills must remain an earned entitlement and not become a ‘‘need-based 

award’’—leave other scholarships, grants, etc. out of the equation. 

• Eliminate inequities among rates paid to eligible individuals for attendance 

at schools of different types—public, private, foreign, graduate, undergraduate, resident or non-resident. 

• Elimination of annual state tuition and fee maximums would improve timing 

of certification, processing, and payment accuracy. 

• Tie the living stipend to training time for all forms of course delivery and reduce the minimum training time requirement to half-time, rather than more 

than half-time. 

• Correct the rule that makes it impossible for a reserve component member 

eligible at less than the 100 percent tier of Chapter 33, to combine federal 

Tuition Assistance (first pay) and Ch 33 (second pay) in any way that would 

cover all their charges. 

• Clarify Non-duplication of a Federal program. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
47 

• NAVPA members fully support legislation which would expand the student 

work study program. 

• Overpayments created by the eligible individual as a result of a reduction or 

termination of enrollment should be recovered from entitlement. 

• NAVPA Recommends elimination of the multiple levels of eligibility as it relates to required active duty service. 

• Amend Chapter 33 to expand educational and training opportunities such as 

OJT/Apprenticeships and other viable and previously approved vocational 

training opportunities. 

• Continue to work toward providing equity in benefit and simplicity in rules 

regarding eligibility, payments and the overall administration of the Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill. 

Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking member Boozman, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. Accompanying me today is Margaret Baechtold, Director Veterans Support Services, Indiana University. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and for the opportunity to share the concerns and 

recommendations of veterans’ program administrators, as well as that of the population they serve regarding educational benefits. 

Concerns we hear from veterans regarding their educational benefits 

• Students pursuing their education through Distance Learning should have 

the same eligibility for housing stipends as students attending what is defined as in-residence training. Veterans should not be penalized for being responsible, disciplined adult learners, for putting their family first or whatever 

reason (personal, professional, geographical, etc.) one might have for choosing 

a mode of study other than that which is strictly defined as ‘‘in-residence’’ 

training. Veterans training under all other GI Bill programs receive full benefit reimbursement for pursuit of programs through distance learning. 

• Veterans have voiced their concern that the ability to pursue their educational endeavors are restricted to that which is deemed by congress to be 

traditional. This not only restricts the method/modality by which they receive 

their educational plans, but restricts their personal choice in educational and 

training institutions, as well as careers. 

• Retired and/or separated veterans, who earned and are otherwise eligible for 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill, have voiced their extreme disappointment in being denied the ability to transfer their entitlement to their dependents. 

• Students don’t understand why VA distinguishes between tuition and fees 

with different caps for each rather than combining them into one maximum, 

particularly for determining the maximum payment allowed for enrollment at 

private schools, out-of-state residents in the public sector, and graduate/professional enrollments in both. 

• Students are concerned that the VA remains unable to credit refunds made 

by the schools to their accounts. Consequently, a debt or overpayment is created and payments are withheld from living stipends, book stipends and kickers to recoup a debt that does not exist. What is even more critical is the fact 

that this is negatively impacting their credit scores, credit card companies are 

cancelling their credit line and in many cases veteran students who counted 

on the promise of a housing allowance each month, are being evicted from 

their homes for a debt that does not exist. 

• Veterans are receiving letters from the Debt Management Center (DMC) stating ‘‘The following information on your delinquent indebtedness, along with 

your name and address, was reported to a number of consumer reporting agencies’’. Although, these students are current with the payment plans negotiated 

with DMC in an effort to repay the emergency advance payments from fall 

2009. 

Feedback we have from schools administering education benefits: 

• There is a critical need for consistent guidance as to the correct procedures 

for returning or refunding payments, as well the assurance that funds returned to the VA will in fact, be credited to veteran’s debts/overpayments. 

Checks sent to the VA are being held until they are no longer negotiable. 

Schools are finding it necessary to track the check, stop payment and issue 

another check. Often the cycle is repeated. Even when the checks are cashed 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
48 

the debt is being charged to the school rather than reconciling the students 

account with the returned funds. • Many students who access their education benefits are placed at a financial 

disadvantage because of DVA’s policy to count class enrollment sessions 

versus term enrollments periods. This often results in a reduction of the veterans student monthly entitlements and is contrary to the disbursement of 

Title IV funds. Recommendation: Consider changing the method of computing 

all credit hours earned in a standard college term to maximize the GI Bill 

benefit to the veteran. • It is imperative that an efficient communication mechanism be established 

between schools and the VA. While schools are not always privileged to the 

eligibility tier on which payment will be made, there is an expectation that 

schools will defer tuition and fee payments based on the students’ statement 

that they are eligible for Chapter 33. • Inconsistent guidance to schools among and between RPOs and ELRs continues to be problematic. • Veterans’ Program Administrators, often referred to as Certifying Officials 

are the people who have the most contact with individuals eligible to train 

under this newest GI Bill. They are working untold hours to assist in the administration of this program and to maintain compliance with the rules governing all veterans’ education programs. It is not business as usual. The program complexities, counseling, fiscal and reconciliation responsibilities associated with this program have increased the processing time for each claim approximately 300%. Institutions continue to be compensated at the rate of $7 

for each student enrolled in most VA educational benefits. If the educational 

institution delivers an advance payment check, compensation is increased to 

the rate of $11 for that student. These fees have not changed since the inception over 30 years ago; however, several programs have been added on to the 

school VA veteran’s program administrator’s responsibility at the institution. 

It is time and appropriate for that fee, paid to the college or university, to 

be increased. NAVPA recommends $50.00 per student and to eliminate the 

difference in reporting fee for the certification of advance payments. Fees 

should be designated for the office of veterans’ affairs for services, outreach, 

and professional development. 

• Customer Relations/Communication continues to be inconsistent and all too 

often inaccurate, regarding information given to both the students and the 

schools by the VA Call Center. Recommendation: Reinstate the customer service units at each of the RPO’s specifically to work with Veterans Program Administrators. 

Improvements to Chapter 33 that NAVPA believes are needed: 

• GI Bills must remain an earned entitlement and not become a ‘‘need-based 

award’’—leave other scholarships, grants, etc, out of the equation. 

• Eliminate inequities among rates paid to eligible individuals for attendance 

at schools of different types—public, private, foreign, graduate, undergraduate, resident or non-resident. 

• Elimination of annual state tuition and fee maximums would improve timing 

of certification, processing, and payment accuracy. Recommendation: 

(1)Provide tuition and fee payments for the public sector based on the actual 

cost (i.e. tuition and mandatory fees) as certified by the educational institution. (2)Provide tuition and fee payments for enrollment in the private sector, 

foreign schools and for out of state/non-residents attending public schools, 

based on actual cost, as certified by the educational institution; not to exceed 

the highest cost program in the public sector. That is, establish a ‘‘national 

maximum’’ (tuition and mandatory fees) allowed for all education and training programs. For the purpose of updating the National Maximum each year, 

it is recommended that the effective date of the new rate be October 1 of each 

academic year. 

• Tie the living stipend to training time for all forms of course delivery and reduce the minimum training time requirement to half-time, rather than more 

than half-time. For example, allow 50% of the monthly living stipend for halftime enrollment, 75% for three-quarter- time, and 100% for full-time. Keep it 

simple as well as equitable—Use the Montgomery GI Bill payment schedule 

as a successful model. 

• Develop an Education Benefits Web Portal. A web portal will provide an efficient mechanism for information exchange with, and access to, education systems by veterans and other stakeholders, such as schools, state approving 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
49 

agencies, etc. At minimum, provide access to Veterans’ eligibility data on VA– 

ONCE to verify benefits remaining, eligibility tier, overpayments, etc. 

• Correct the rule that makes it impossible for a reserve component member 

eligible at less than the 100% tier of Chapter 33, to combine federal Tuition 

Assistance (first pay) and Ch 33 (second pay) in any way that would cover 

all their charges. This disadvantage also applies to ROTC scholarship recipients. 

• Clarify Non-duplication of a Federal program. DVA advisories concerning 

which programs would duplicate federal benefits appears to conflict with current laws. A brief summary of CFR 21.7143 (c) provides that; (1) payment of 

educational assistance is prohibited for a unit course or courses which are 

being paid for entirely or partly by the armed forces during any periods he 

or she is on active duty; (2) payment of educational assistance is prohibited 

for a unit course or courses which are being paid for entirely or partly by the 

Department of Health and Human Services during any period that he or she 

is on active duty with the Public Health Service or (3)for a unit course or 

courses being paid for entirely or partly by the United stated under the Government Employees Training Act. 

• NAVPA members fully support legislation which would expand the student 

work study program. Allow veterans and other eligible persons the opportunity to work in the college/university veterans’ affairs office and/or administrative or academic departments at the degree granting institution of higher 

learning in which the student is pursuing their academic credentials. Additionally, allow them to take advantage of this programs while enrolled at a 

minimum of 1⁄2 time student status, especially critical for summer sessions 

and other non-standard length enrollment periods. Many veterans have not 

graduated when their MGIB entitlement has expired after having reached its 

36th month. These veterans are still in school; still have some time remaining 

relative to the delimiting date, yet have no VA educational benefit to help 

them through the remaining few months of school. We recommend that the 

VA Work-study program not be limited to 36 months, rather be made available to them as long as they have not reached their delimiting date. 

• Eliminate overpayments—To establish an overpayment puts unnecessary burden on the student and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the effort to 

recover the overpayment. We are suggesting that an individual has 36 

months of entitlement under a single program and that an overpayment 

should not exist until the eligible individual has used 36 months. Overpayments created by the eligible individual as a result of a reduction or termination of enrollment should be recovered from entitlement. 

• The percentage or tier of eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most complicating factor in determining eligibility, processing claims and making other 

financial awards by both the VA and the educational institutions. NAVPA 

Recommends elimination of the multiple levels of eligibility as it relates to required active duty service. The level of benefit should be reduce to two levels, 

one level for a cumulative period of active duty of 3 or more years and another for less than 3 years. We suggest that to establish basic eligibility, an 

otherwise eligible individual must serve on active duty for 181 cumulative 

days following September 10, 2001, completed the initial obligated period of 

service and met all other eligibility requirements. 

• NAVPA encourages the Secretary and Congress to amend Chapter 33 to expand educational and training opportunities such as OJT/Apprenticeships and 

other viable and previously approved vocational training opportunities. Many 

veterans are not interested in attending college, but have the skills necessary 

to master a trade. Limiting training opportunities (career options), consequently dilutes the readjustment element of the program. 

• Continue to work toward providing equity in benefit and simplicity in rules 

regarding eligibility, payments and the overall administration of the Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to participate in this hearing, to discuss 

current problems affecting veterans as well as educational institutions, and to recommend solutions on behalf of our nation’s veterans, servicemembers and their dependents, and the National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or other members of Subcommittee may have. 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

Prepared Statement of Alan G. Merten, Ph.D., President, 

George Mason University, on behalf of American Association of 

State Colleges and Universities, 

Executive Summary 

Concerns Heard from Veterans Regarding Educational Benefits 

VA’s delays and problems in implementing Chapter 33 are well-documented in 

both hearing testimony and the press. Specific new concerns are as follows: 

• Veteran students filling out help desk tickets on the VA Web site are given 

unrelated information and directed to the FAQ site, causing frustration 

• Continuing delays (2–3 months) in receipt of Certificate of Eligibility from VA 

Feedback from Schools Administering Educational Benefits 

Despite implementation pressures facing the VA, VA did not make an effort to 

understand how institutions operate and work with the Federal Government. Specific examples are as follows: 

• VA did not take advantage of existing program models directing federal funds 

to institutions on behalf of students (e.g., Title IV programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965); 

• VA’s interpretation of the higher education term ‘‘tuition and fees’’ caused significant confusion. The higher education community usually refers to tuition 

and fees as a single amount, not two separate ones; VA’s separation of ‘‘tuition’’ and ‘‘fees’’ confused not only veteran students, but institutions; 

• The VA did not issue clear, coherent, and consistent Chapter 33 operational 

guidance to institutions, adding to increased administrative burden on institutions; 

• VA’s required fund return processes have caused veterans to owe significant 

monies to the Federal Government and do not align with the Return of Title 

IV Funds process under the HEA, which does not disadvantage students in 

this manner. 

Needed Improvements to Chapter 33 

AASCU recommends Congress consider the following: 

• Congress should clearly define the benefit amount for which an individual 

veteran student is eligible and eliminate the separate tuition and fee charts 

constructed by the VA; 

• Future legislation should clearly establish the benefit equal to the established 

charges for the program of education at a public institution, adhering to the 

underlying tenet of the Post-9/11 GI Bill of covering the cost of public education for veterans; 

• Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) should be implemented for online students due to enrollment patterns of veterans; 

• Congress should consider requiring VA to collect and publish more complete 

and timely data on Post-9/11 GI Bill usage, including VA customer service 

data for students and institutions. 

Madame Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Alan Merten and I am 

president of the George Mason University. Today, however, I am here to present the 

perspective of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) 

related to the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits program at its 430 

institutions located in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and 

the Virgin Islands. Thank you for holding this hearing and providing the opportunity to present this testimony. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is an excellent, timely opportunity for veterans and their families to pursue postsecondary education. 

I would also like to note that AASCU is the contract administrator for the Department-of-Defense-funded Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC). The SOC Consortium is a network of approximately 1,900 colleges and universities offering educational services to our nation’s Armed Forces and veterans. In order to be included 

in the Consortium, an institution must establish flexible policies appropriate for the 

unique demands on servicemembers and dependents. These policies address items 

such as enrollment and transfer of credit. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 

While national- and institutional-level data on the Post-9/11 GI Bill program and 

veteran students on campus is lacking, some specific data points about AASCU institutions serving veteran students are as follows: 

• AASCU’s San Diego State University, one of the many military-friendly 

AASCU institutions, enrolled over 1,100 active-duty military, reservists, veterans, and military dependents in Spring 2009; • Of the 7 brick-and-mortar campuses reported by the VA as having enrolled 

the most veteran students using Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in 2009–10, 3 campuses (Old Dominion University, Troy University, and University of Maryland-University College) were AASCU members. These institutions enrolled 

over 5,000 of the 12,000+ students on those 7 campuses (approximately 43 

percent of enrollment), with University of Maryland-University College alone 

enrolling over 3,000 veteran students; • In 2007–08 (prior to Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation), according to the National Center for Education Statistics, approximately 21 percent of all military undergraduates (including active-duty, reserve, and veterans) were enrolled at public 4-year institutions. 

When the Post-9/11 GI Bill was first introduced it was anticipated that colleges 

and universities would see a 20–25 percent increase in enrollment of veterans. At 

Mason, we saw a 30 percent increase in our Fall 2009 enrollment of veterans and 

a 79 percent increase in Spring 2010. One of those newly enrolled veterans introduced President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Webb and Senator John 

Warner, and Secretary Shinseki at George Mason University when the bill was introduced nationally on August 3, 2009. 

The Committee asked us to address three areas: • concerns heard from veterans regarding their educational benefits, • feedback from institutions about implementation and administering benefits, • improvements to the Chapter 33 program that AASCU would suggest are 

needed. 

Historically, GI Bill benefits were provided directly to the veteran student. As 

Vietnam-era veterans, my wife and I received benefits in this manner. The creation 

and implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program altered this dynamic by having 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issue tuition and fee payments directly to 

the institution after a certifying process. The compressed timeline the VA faced in 

implementing this program created a difficult situation. 

I would like to highlight some of the issues faced by veterans on our campuses. 

The VA’s delays and problems in implementing Chapter 33 are well-documented in 

both hearing testimony and the press. In fact, VA has gone on record to say that 

its performance was not acceptable. Thus, one of the major and universal issues 

being faced by veteran students is delays. In addition to delays in processing original benefits, many Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit delays have occurred in reprocessing 

and in payment of other allowances, such as housing and book stipends. In addition, 

delays of up to a year are occurring with regard to appeals for claim re-evaluations. 

Given that tuition and fee benefit payments are now directed to institutions, veteran students rely more heavily on school officials to provide guidance and information related to their benefits. The VA’s guidance to both institutions and veterans 

has been generally basic in nature. This has frustrated both institution officials and 

the veteran student population. Veteran students have informed institutions that 

they find the VA Web site—which VA has heavily publicized as a way of providing 

Post-9/11 GI Bill information to veterans and institutions alike—difficult to navigate. Reportedly, VA’s responses to inquiries submitted online are often inadequate 

and do not address the specific problem about which they have inquired. Students 

also find they cannot get through to the VA toll-free number (a problem shared by 

institutions). Institutions report that staff at the VA toll-free hotline provide information to students that is later found to be incorrect, which places more administrative burden on institutions. 

The school official is not a VA employee and in many cases does this task as a 

collateral duty. As a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the workload on these staff 

members has increased to the point that many schools like Mason have had to hire 

additional personnel to handle not only the certification process but the billing process as well. While the VA does pay schools an annual reporting fee of $7.00 for each 

certified veteran, that amount hardly covers the costs. Senator Chuck Hagel (RNeb.) said, ‘‘the biggest obstacle might be reintegrating soldiers seamlessly into society,’’ and he suggests that higher education can do that better than any other institution. Higher education can do this but it needs to be supported and equipped to 

ensure this success. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
52 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill has also presented higher education institutions with a 

number of challenges that many are not yet prepared to meet. These include a number of student veterans with academic need, mental health and disability issues. 

There are academic issues that many veterans face. Some veterans require some 

remedial education before starting college, some because they have lost skills in the 

years since high school and others because they were not college-ready in the first 

place. Some have received their GEDs through the military. Some may benefit from 

first attending community colleges whose open enrollment policies and education 

model is often more conducive to adult learners. 

A recent RAND report indicated that 1 in 5 Post-9/11 veterans will suffer from 

combat stress or cognitive issues such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury. These potential student veterans require additional support 

from university staff who must work with military specific combat stress issues as 

the veteran attempts to cope with battlefield experiences. Not all schools and not 

all student health centers are equipped to address these needs. 

In addition to the mental health issues, the Department of Defense indicated recently that there are over 36,000 servicemembers who have been wounded in action. 

Some of these wounded warriors have catastrophic combat injuries that are not typically found on campuses where disabilities have a far different meaning. Such injuries represent a growing concern in higher education on how to be Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant since most institutions of higher learning are only 

prepared for historic disabilities. Since this service is mandated by law regardless 

of cost, there appears to be no legally acceptable response if the institution were to 

fail in providing these services. 

Despite the implementation pressures facing the VA—which AASCU fully understands—more effort on VA’s part to understand how institutions operate and work 

with the Federal Government should have occurred. For many decades, programs 

directing federal funds to institutions on behalf of students have existed, namely 

Title IV programs under the Higher Education Act. Even a cursory examination of 

these programs would have guided the VA toward a more efficient implementation 

of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Further, the VA interpretation of the higher education term 

‘‘tuition and fees’’ caused significant confusion. The higher education community 

usually refers to tuition and fees as a single amount, not two separate ones; VA’s 

separation of ‘‘tuition’’ and ‘‘fees’’ into two discrete charts, while well-intentioned, 

was confusing for not only veteran students, but institutions. 

Other higher education officials have testified before Congress to these same concerns. It is VA’s seeming refusal to take into account higher education’s established 

operating procedures that has led to many of the current implementation issues. 

While the delays above are an administrative issue, VA has not issued clear, coherent, and consistent Chapter 33 operational guidance to institutions. Campus administrators must routinely address diverse issues involving veteran students. Many of 

these issues are nuanced and need more than basic operational guidance. While we 

understand VA’s time constraints and initial focus on getting benefits processed, unfortunately the lack of clear and comprehensive guidance anticipating complex situations has complicated and delayed the delivery of benefits. 

Institutions have the opportunity to elect to receive Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and 

fee benefits for veteran students either electronically or via individual checks. Institutional feedback is that neither approach seems to be ideal. If institutions receive 

payments electronically, the electronic funds transfer process does not allow for individual annotations explaining why a particular tuition and fee benefit is being returned to VA (e.g., a student having dropped from full-time enrollment to part-time 

enrollment). If institutions opt to receive individual checks for each veteran student, 

a cumbersome reconciliation process is necessary for institutions to ensure the correct monies are credited to veteran students’ accounts. 

A common concern is that administrative burden has increased throughout the 

implementation of the program, mainly due to the necessity to resolve over- or underpayments by VA. The issue of over- and underpayment requires close examination. When students change majors, drop or withdraw from a class, or have other 

life circumstances affect their finances or attendance, the institution must recalculate benefits. This reevaluation may result in either decreased or increased benefit eligibility. The VA issued guidance on how to handle these circumstances that 

required institutions to return all of the originally issued benefit and start the certification process over from scratch. 

Contrast this process with the Return of Title IV Funds process under the Higher 

Education Act. In these situations, institutions recalculate benefit eligibility and adjust accordingly. If the student has received an overpayment, the excess amount is 

returned to the Federal Government. If a student is eligible for additional funds, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 

the school requests the additional funds. In both situations, however, the student 

is not usually in a limbo state of having no funds credited to his or her account. 

If, for some reason, federal Title IV grant funds received directly by a student 

(i.e., a refund of grant monies in excess of tuition and fees) are later determined 

to be an overpayment and thus must be repaid by the student, the institution can 

receive those funds from the student and conduct appropriate fiscal transactions 

with the Department of Education on the student’s behalf. That way, the institution 

is always acting on behalf of the student. However, this is not the case with Post9/11 GI Bill benefits administration. 

VA’s requirement that institutions return the entire initial benefit amount issued 

has placed veterans in the position of owing significant monies to the Federal Government. The VA is being extremely diligent in pursuing these veteran students; 

however, there are instances where funds returned to the VA by institutions were 

not properly credited by the VA to individual students’ accounts. These processing 

issues have resulted in detrimental circumstances, as highlighted by the document 

attached to this testimony (see Attachment A). 

To further complicate the return of tuition and fee funds in an over- or underpayment situation, the VA established two different procedures for the flow of funds. 

If classes have not begun, the institution must return the funds directly to the Federal Government. After classes have begun, VA directs that the payment—even if 

an overpayment—should be issued to the student. The VA will then collect any monies owed to the Federal Government directly from the individual. This further complicates an already convoluted process. Further, based on past experiences with 

over- and underpayments of Post-9/11 funds, some schools are reluctant to issue a 

check for over $20,000 to a student but would rather act as the responsible agent. 

By contrast, the benefit adjustment process for Title IV education benefits is the 

same throughout the entire academic calendar. 

Given the above examples, it is difficult not to wonder whether if VA had better 

consulted with the Department of Education and/or higher education institutions 

during the ramp-up to Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation, some of its 2009–10 performance failures might have been mitigated and taxpayer money saved. 

As noted earlier, Chapter 33 is a tremendous opportunity for veterans and their 

families to pursue higher education; therefore, we offer the following as suggestions 

to further enhance and improve the current program. 

First and foremost, Congress needs to clearly define the benefit amount for which 

an individual veteran student is eligible. This specifically entails eliminating the 

separate tuition and fee charts constructed by the Veterans Administration as the 

means to determine Post-9/11 GI Bill payment eligibility. The current tuition and 

fee charts as constructed by VA are not only an interpretation of the current Post9/11 GI Bill language that we believe Congress did not intend, but are also inconsistent with commonly accepted higher education practices, as noted earlier. 

Standard practice in most institutions of higher education is to bill a student for 

tuition, required fees, and any other applicable charges (e.g., room and board for a 

resident student) for a single term. The bill is generally itemized—except at those 

institutions charging a ‘‘comprehensive fee’’ that includes tuition, required fees, 

room, and board—but usually not separated into one payment for tuition and one 

payment for fees. Federal Title IV funds are also generally applied to the total of 

tuition and fees rather than being divided into one payment for tuition and one payment for fees. 

Thus VA’s interpretation of Post-9/11 GI Bill language to separate ‘‘tuition’’ and 

‘‘fees’’ into two separate categories runs counter to how higher education operates. 

This is not merely a semantic issue. When the tuition and fee charts were originally 

issued by VA, this method had the financial consequence of lowering Post-9/11 GI 

Bill benefits for veteran students in California, where ‘‘fees’’ are commonly used to 

characterize what other states call ‘‘tuition.’’ This terminology is common knowledge 

in the higher education community and to California residents. It was apparently 

unknown to VA. Fortunately, public outcry from both veteran students and public 

and private institutions in California—as well as Congressional concern—rectified 

this problem. But VA’s interpretation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill to create these charts 

negatively affected veteran students and institutions of higher education alike. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill establishes a highest in-state rate for the academic year 

that fails to take into account tuition increases at institutions during that academic 

year. For example, at Mason our summer tuition rate increase was approximately 

8 percent. Since this increase was above the highest in-state rate established for the 

academic year, it was not covered. 

The underlying tenet of the Post-9/11 GI Bill is to ensure that costs at a public 

institution are covered for a veteran student. As such, any future legislation should 

clearly establish the benefit equal to the established charges for the program of eduVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
54 

cation at a public institution. This removes any confusion between ‘‘tuition’’ and 

‘‘fees’’ in different states and gives the veteran student a clearer idea of what he 

or she is eligible for in advance of enrollment. 

In addition, there is a notion being discussed of designating the VA as the ‘‘last 

payer’’ for the veteran. While AASCU understands some of the reasons for this notion, please understand that the idea will not simplify Chapter 33 or reduce confusion for veteran students. Let me be clear: Should Congress pursue this notion, it 

will again be faced with rewriting this legislation within the next two years due to 

the intolerable chaos it will inflict on both veteran students and program administrators. 

Even before the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Mason experienced a similar issue with our 

ROTC program. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is an entitlement for a veteran’s service to 

the armed forces but it cannot be used in conjunction with ROTC benefits, which 

are paid to a student for future service. When we questioned this dilemma the VA 

stated that the student has to choose which federal benefit he/she wishes to receive. 

A veteran shouldn’t have to forgo a benefit they have earned to take advantage of 

another. 

Another issue that Congress should address on behalf of veteran students is related to providing a basic allowance for housing (BAH) for online students. Currently, BAH benefits are only awarded to veterans taking at least one course on 

campus. Nearly 70 percent of active-duty servicemembers take online courses; thus, 

as students transition to veteran status, they are already accustomed to utilizing 

distance learning options. The lack of this benefit has resulted in decisions creating 

further hardship. For example, a student who otherwise would have taken an online 

course who now must travel to a face-to-face classroom may incur transportation 

costs or child-care costs that would have otherwise been avoided. Also, veteran students recovering from service-related injuries (particularly those students suffering 

from PTSD or TBI) report feeling forced to go into a classroom to keep their BAH 

even though to them, a distance-learning environment would better suit their recovery process. 

Finally, AASCU would ask Congress to consider requiring VA to collect and publish more complete and timely data on Post-9/11 GI Bill usage, including data on 

customer service by VA to both veteran students and institutions. As has been noted 

not only in testimony to the House and Senate but in the higher education press 

and in other media, VA’s statistics related to Post-9/11 GI Bill usage and claims 

processing are incomplete and confusing. Publishing more timely and complete data 

would allow veteran students and taxpayers to better understand VA’s progress in 

administering this complex program. Furthermore, given that this is a new program, a unique opportunity exists for VA to use the data collected to refine and 

streamline its processes and functions. In addition, it will be useful for the larger 

higher education community to use the data in improving programs and services for 

veteran students. 

According to the American Council on Education 2009 report on ‘‘Serving Those 

Who Serve: Higher Education and America’s Veterans,’’ only about 71 percent of eligible servicemembers use their VA education benefits, only 6 percent use their full 

benefits, and on average, they only use 17 months of a 36-month entitlement. 

While many of the circumstances highlighted today are a direct result of the Post9/11 GI Bill implementation process, institutions like Mason stand ready to work 

with the VA in order to ensure ease of access for veterans enrolling in postsecondary 

education. Many of the issues discussed are operational in nature; thus legislative 

fixes are not necessarily appropriate. Furthermore, institutions of higher education 

were extraordinarily flexible and generous in the 2009–10 academic year at the request of VA when dealing with veteran students whose Chapter 33 benefits were 

delayed by VA’s implementation problems. 

The good news is that the VA has increased its outreach to schools and appears 

much more willing to work collaboratively and openly with the higher education 

community to understand how the VA processes—and their interface with higher 

education business practices—could be improved to better and more effectively assist veteran students. We are encouraged that this effort will continue and can resolve the operational issues that have plagued implementation. 

The initial unwillingness on the part of the VA to reach out to schools hurt veteran students first and foremost. It also hindered the efforts of higher education institutions across the country to assist veteran students’ enrollment and facilitate 

their success. The higher education community is prepared and eagerly looks forward to working collaboratively with the VA to streamline this program and reduce 

the confusion to institutions, the VA, but most importantly the veteran. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
55 

Thank you again Madame Chairwoman. I look forward to your questions. 

Attachment A 

The Higher Education community presents the following scenarios that lead to 

the return of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This 

outline of common scenarios is provided in response to VA concerns regarding the 

receipt of funds from institutions. 

1. Veteran enrolls but never attends class. 

When a veteran applies for Post-9/11 benefits, the institution of higher education 

must verify enrollment then complete and send the veteran’s Certificate of Eligibility (COE) to VA. Upon receipt of the COE, VA calculates the veteran’s benefit 

and remits payment to the school, often prior to the start of class. Not infrequently, 

a veteran will withdraw before classes begin but after payment of Post-9/11 benefits 

has been received by the school. This payment must be refunded to VA. 

2. Veteran’s Post-9/11 benefits and other tuition-restricted aid exceed 

cost of tuition and fees. 

Veterans are frequently eligible for multiple types of financial aid in addition to 

Post-9/11 benefits. Schools often receive other aid for a veteran after his or her Post9/11 benefits have been received. When the combination of Post-9/11 benefits and 

other aid exceeds the cost of tuition and fees, the excess payment must be returned 

to the aid source. If we understand the proposed legislative change correctly, VA is 

‘last payer’; therefore the Post-9/11 benefits comprise the excess payment and must 

be refunded to VA. 

3. Veteran declines Post-9/11 benefits after they have been paid by VA. 

Veterans may change their mind and decide not to use their Post-9/11 benefits 

after they have already received them. These benefit payments must be refunded 

to VA. 

4. School receives Post-9/11 benefit payments from VA on behalf of veterans for whom school has not completed Certificate of Eligibility. 

In order to determine a veteran’s eligibility for Post-9/11 benefits a COE must be 

submitted to VA by the school. If the school receives a benefit payment without having submitted a COE the payment must be refunded to VA. 

5. School receives duplicate and inaccurate Post-9/11 benefit payments 

from VA. 

When schools receive a duplicate Post-9/11 benefit payment for the same veteran, 

the duplicate payment must be refunded to VA. When schools receive an under- or 

over-payment of Post -9/11 benefits for a veteran, schools must refund the entire 

payment to VA and request VA to remit the correct payment amount. 

The table below contains specific examples of the situations described above. 

School Example 

1. Western Illinois University Veteran withdrew before class after Post-9/11 benefits had been 

paid; WIU refunded benefits to VA via check in Dec 2009; VA 

cashed the check in Feb 2010 but didn’t process it to the veteran’s account until Aug 2010. 

2. University of Illinois Veteran received ROTC scholarship after Post-9/11 benefits had 

been paid; UI refunded benefits to VA via ACH in early 

March 2010 according to VA’s ACH return policy; VA still has 

not processed the refund and was still requesting payment 

from the veteran in late Aug 2010. 

3. University of Illinois Per veteran’s request, UI refunded Post-9/11 benefits to VA via 

ACH in early March 2010 according to VA’s ACH return policy; VA did not process the refund until late July 2010; meanwhile VA reported veteran as delinquent to the credit bureaus, ruining his credit and causing Discover to cancel his 

credit card. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
56 

School Example 

4. University of Illinois UI received $8,305.60 Post-9/11 benefit payment from VA on 

January 19, 2010 then received another payment in the 

amount of $9,343.80 from VA on May 13, 2010 for the same 

veteran. 

5. Illinois State University ISU received payment from VA for a veteran’s books and supplies stipend (which should have been remitted directly to the 

veteran). 

6. Illinois State University ISU certified a veteran’s Post-9/11 benefit eligibility at 70 percent but received payment from VA in March 2010 at 60 percent; ISU questioned VA’s eligibility calculation in March 

2010 and was told by VA that 60 percent was correct; at veteran’s request, ISU questioned VA again in August 2010 and 

was told student eligibility is 70 percent. 

7. The George Washington University GWU received Post-9/11 benefit payments from VA via check 

f 

and ACH for the same veteran. 

Prepared Statement of Donald D. Overton, Jr., 

Executive Director, Veterans of Modern Warfare 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of Veterans of 

Modern Warfare (VMW) and our National President Joseph Morgan we thank you 

for the opportunity to present our views on an ‘‘Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill.’’ 

My name is Donald Overton and I am a 100% service-connected combat disabled 

Army veteran of the first Gulf War currently serving as Executive Director for Veterans of Modern Warfare. VMW is a 501(c)19 National Wartime Veterans Service 

Organization founded in 2006. VMW represents active-duty, National Guardsmen, 

Reservists, and Veterans who have served honorably in our Nation’s armed forces 

from August 2, 1990 through a date to be prescribed by Presidential proclamation 

or law. 

Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill more than a year ago, VMW members across the Nation have been afforded the opportunity to pursue educational endeavors at varying institutions of higher learning. However, far too many have been 

left behind. It became readily apparent that this historically significant legislation 

had a multitude of unforeseen limitations. Hopefully, this committee, along with 

your colleagues in the 111th Congress, will correct these limitations and ensure the 

maximum effectiveness of the most generous investment in veterans’ educational 

benefits since the end of World War II. 

Considering the current global economic climate, and our Nation’s fiscal obligations both foreign and domestic, veterans’ education and employment has fortunately remained a top national priority. VMW salutes the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs for its ongoing efforts and consideration of H.R. 3337 (Post-9/11 Veterans’ Job Training Act of 2009), H.R. 4765 (authorizing VA to receive work-study 

allowances for certain outreach services provided through congressional offices), 

H.R. 3813 (Veterans Training Act), H.R. 3719 (Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration Act of 2009) and H.R. 5933 (Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance 

Improvements Act of 2010). 

VMW staunchly supports these legislative initiatives, although we are somewhat 

concerned by certain provisions. Since many of these initiatives have been incorporated and seemingly culminated into H.R. 5933, we will focus our Chapter 33 benefits package comments on this bill, while we address our concerns over effective 

and efficient implementation. Without a major cultural transformation within the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, as prescribed by H.R. 3719, the most well intentioned Chapter 33 legislative remedies may be doomed to failure. 

Student Veterans Chapter 33 Concerns 

Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits failed to provide: 

• the opportunity to pursue educational programs at institutions other than institutions of higher learning, including vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job 

training, correspondence and flight training; 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

• full GI Bill credit for full-time National Guard service, to include full-time 

Title 32 Active Guard Reserve and state activation service; 

• housing stipend for distance learners, or those studying less than full-time; 

• Yellow Ribbon benefits to certain National Guard and reserve personnel 

members; 

• multiple licensing or certification testing reimbursements; and 

• an equivalent book stipend for active-duty students. 

Although this list is not exhaustive of the concerns of our student veteran members, it does provide a framework from which to develop and implement substantial 

legislative improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits package. These improvements will have a positive impact on the lives of tens of thousands of Americans 

who have served in our Nation’s armed forces, as well as on their families and the 

global economy. 

Chapter 33 Improvements 

H.R. 5933 (Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010) 

remedies a multitude of concerns espoused by our student veteran members. This 

legislation would: 

• revise definitions concerning eligibility, and include certain National Guard 

service as service qualifying for such assistance; 

• revise assistance amounts (including monthly stipends), and types of approved programs of education; 

• allow the pursuit of educational programs at institutions other than institutions of higher learning, including on-the-job training and apprenticeships, 

flight training, and correspondence courses; 

• provide an assistance amount for programs of education pursued while on active-duty; 

• repeal the limit on the use of such assistance for the payment of only one licensing or certification test; 

• allow an individual entitled to supplemental educational assistance to transfer such entitlement to the post-9/11 program; 

• bar the duplication of benefits under other educational assistance programs; 

• increase the amount of the reporting fee paid by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) to an educational institution for providing information concerning 

an individual’s enrollment in a program of education; 

• extend to certain National Guard and Reserve personnel eligibility to receive 

public-private contributions for additional educational assistance; 

• reauthorize through 2016 the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Education; 

• revise cost-of-living adjustments under the Montgomery GI Bill educational 

assistance program; and 

• provide an alternate subsistence allowance amount for veterans entitled to 

such allowance because of service-connected disabilities. 

While we applaud these adjustments, VMW remains concerned by language found 

in H.R. 5933 at: 

Section 3 ‘‘Modification of Amount of Assistance and Types of Approved Programs 

of Education’’ 

(a) . . . 

(1) . . . 

(A) . . . 

(B) . . . 

(C) . . . 

(A) An amount equal to—— 

(i) . . . 

(ii) in the case that such institution is a non-public or foreign institution of higher learning, the lesser of—— 

(I) . . . 

(II)$20,000 for each academic year 

Establishing these tuition caps will have a negative impact on student veterans 

attending private colleges within the following states: Michigan, New Hampshire, 

New York, Pennsylvania and Texas. There is no guarantee that the Yellow Ribbon 

program will be capable of absorbing these monetary offsets, and without current 

statistical data to analyze the number of student veterans potentially impacted, or 

the overall extent of this provision, we would encourage a comprehensive analysis 

prior to insertion of this provision in the legislation that will ultimately be enacted. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
58 

Our other concern may be found at Section 11, the proposed elimination of the 

Cost of Living Allowance for Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill recipients to afford a 

Cost of Living Allowance for Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients. Taking benefits 

from one class of veterans to pay for another is an unjust policy consideration and 

should not have even been proposed. We urge you to eliminate this from any bill 

that goes forward. 

Given the prescribed effective date of August 2011, we believe this will afford the 

VA and school administrators’ ample time to train and prepare for the adjusted benefit package. This will also assuage what has been the primary concern of school 

administrators: the lack of communication and training time by the VA. 

Implementation Improvements 

Our Nation owes veterans much more than ‘‘blood money,’’ especially to our veterans who have been disabled in service to our country. The central event in their 

readjustment process is being able to secure gainful work at a living wage. 

H.R. 3719 (Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration Act of 2009), establishes in the Department of Veterans Affairs a Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration, to be headed by an Under Secretary for Veterans Economic Opportunity who will administer VA programs of economic opportunity assistance to veterans and their dependents and survivors. It will put under one roof the following 

VA programs: (1) vocational rehabilitation and employment; (2) educational assistance; (3) veterans’ housing loan and related programs; (4) veterans’ entrepreneurship; and (5) homeless veterans. 

This bill also would establish as an interagency committee the Department of Veterans Affairs-Department of Labor-Small Business Administration Joint Executive 

Committee on Economic Opportunity to recommend to the Secretaries of Veterans 

Affairs and Labor and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration strategic direction for the joint coordination and sharing of efforts to promote and administer veterans economic opportunity programs for education and training, vocational rehabilitation, employment, small business, and homelessness, and to oversee 

implementation of those efforts. 

We have seen time and again the VA’s failure to properly implement the benefit 

programs within their purview. These failures have been particularly pervasive 

within the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). It is imperative that during 

this era of cultural transformation within the VA, under Secretary Shinseki’s bold 

leadership, that the VEOA be created. Removing these relevant programs from the 

antiquated and over-burdened VBA will ensure the viability of veterans’ economic 

opportunities for their futures, a just reward from a grateful Nation. 

Conclusion 

Madame Chairwoman, VMW again thanks you for this opportunity to express our 

views, and will be pleased to respond to any questions you or your colleagues may 

have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of James D. Wear, 

Assistant Director, National Veterans Service, 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN, RANKING MEMBER BOOZMAN AND 

MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our 

Auxiliaries, we would like to thank the subcommittee for giving us the opportunity 

to testify today on veterans’ concerns regarding their education benefits and improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

The VFW is very proud to have worked with this subcommittee to pass the Post9/11 GI Bill in July of 2008. A generation of veterans is now better equipped to seek 

higher education, with hundreds of thousands of veterans in schools across the nation directly benefiting from the dedication, work and leadership of this subcommittee and its staff. 

VA’s latest education workload report dated September 7, 2010, shows the number of non-Chapter 33 educations enrollments pending at 168,237. While VA recently reported that their automated data integration system had allowed them to 

process 130,000 Chapter 33 enrollments so far this year, we believe that they also 

need to focus on timely processing of non-Chapter 33 enrollments as well. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
59 

VA is to be commended for the timely processing of these claims and for having 

the ‘‘Spring 2010 GI Bill Benefit Processing’’ Web site available to track their processing of education enrollments during the 2009–2010 academic year. However, 

there is no analogous ‘‘Fall 2010 GI Bill Benefit Processing’’ Web site to track current education payment progress during the 2010–2011 academic year. VFW requests that VA have a Web site to track the processing of both Chapter 33 and nonChapter 33 education payments during the 2010–2011 academic year. 

While VA’s Web site will help to track enrollments, there are additional improvements that can be made by reexamining the Post-9/11 GI Bill with an eye toward 

simplifying and strengthening the benefits it provides. We offer a number of suggestions to improve, simplify and strengthen the legislation with the goal of ensuring 

equitable benefits for equivalent service. 

The VFW offers its strong support for H.R. 5933, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. We are enthusiastic about the direction this legislation takes the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The VFW believes a number of 

changes must be made to the Post-9/11 GI Bill to address the needs of today’s 

servicemembers, veterans and their families. Many of these changes are reflected 

in the bill. 

Of the many positive changes in this legislation, the provisions that would allow 

Guard and Reserve members to count active-duty service under Title 32 orders toward Chapter 33 eligibility is perhaps the most important. This change will credit 

these men and women for their service securing our nation’s borders and airports, 

cleaning up the Gulf, and for saving lives and property during and after natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. We need to reward this continuous noble service 

with Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility. Making sure the Reserve component receives equitable benefits for equivalent service is a top VFW priority. 

Because of variations in state tuition and fees, this legislation would eliminate the 

state-based payment cap, in favor of the guarantee that Chapter 33 benefits will 

fully cover the cost of public undergraduate or graduate programs across the Unites 

States. Further, it offers a dollar for dollar match up to $20,000 per year at all approved non-public and foreign institutions of higher learning. 

In the Post-9/11 GI Bill, half-time training was linked with less than half-time 

training. This legislation separates those definitions to clarify the difference between half-time training and less than half-time training. This change will make 

the rate of benefit payment easier for the veterans and the institutions of higher 

learning to understand as well for VA to administer. 

This legislation seeks to provide a housing stipend for half-time students. VFW 

supports proportionate housing stipends. Current law does not pay a living allowance for half-time students, yet students enrolled with one credit more than halftime receive the full living stipend. The legislation proposes that if veterans enrolled 

in a program of education on a half-time basis the monthly housing stipend would 

be 50 percent of full-time basic housing stipend. This would make rates simpler to 

understand and greatly reduce the number of over charges to veterans. The VFW 

supports proportionate housing stipends for half-time students. 

The VFW also supports providing housing stipends to veterans so that they can 

focus on their studies knowing their housing costs will be covered while pursuing 

a program of education at a foreign institution of higher learning. 

One of the primary purposes of the GI Bill is to serve as a transition program. 

We encourage every veteran to attend classes in a traditional classroom setting 

among their civilian peers. We believe the GI Bill helps reintegrate veterans into 

civilian life by encouraging socialization in the classrooms and lecture halls of America. Nevertheless, the VFW supports providing housing stipends for distance learning so veterans can focus on their studies knowing not only are their housing costs 

provided for but their transportation costs are minimized. Also, offering one of the 

newest technological means of delivering learning to students helps educational institutions keep down tuition and fees. 

There are many essential well-paying jobs that require training not provided in 

colleges or universities. This legislation would expand the Post-9/11 GI Bill to include programs of education at institutions other than institutions of higher learning to include On-the-Job Training and Apprenticeships. The original GI Bill provided World War II veterans benefits for apprenticeships and vocational training. 

We believe the Post-9/11 GI Bill should also provide current veterans the same opportunity to seek careers in skilled trades. These programs represent the most effective direct employment programs available to our nation’s newest veterans. The legislation would include certified Vocational Programs (non-degree granting institutions) and On-the-Job Training (OJT)/Apprenticeship programs to allow veterans 

the opportunity to learn a trade while receiving a living allowance, tuition and book 

stipend. Many veterans have technical skills and transferable credit acquired in the 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
60 

military that gives them a head start on earning a technical education. We should 

encourage veterans to invest in technical educations as these skill sets will help us 

to re-build our cities and restart our economy. 

Each veteran should receive a living allowance based on BAH and the zip code of the OJT program. The annual $1,000 book stipend would best be paid in $500 

intervals at the beginning of the training and then six months thereafter to aid the 

veteran in covering the cost of tools and program supplies. 

We support educational assistance for flight training and programs of education 

taken by correspondence. 

The VFW supports legislation which allows a lump sum for books, supplies, equipment and other educational costs for individuals on active duty pursuing a program 

of education. 

This legislation would also establish a protocol allowing veterans to take multiple 

licensure and certification tests at no charge to their entitlement until the test costs 

exceed $2,000.00. The VFW supports this. 

This legislation ensures that supplemental education assistance under Subchapter 

III of Chapter 30, transfers into Chapter 33. The VFW supports the inclusion of 

these important incentives to assist the Department of Defense (DoD) in managing 

its military retention programs. 

This legislation also adds to the Chapter 31 program an equitable housing stipend 

for veterans utilizing the Vocational Rehabilitation and Education programs. The 

VFW supports this. 

These changes to the GI Bill are absolutely necessary to ensure that veterans 

have every opportunity to pursue and complete programs of learning that will not 

only help them make the transition from warrior to civilian, but will also provide 

them the tools to become and remain productive, taxpaying, members of society for 

a lifetime. By streamlining processes and opening new avenues to education and 

training, veterans will be better equipped to make their ambitions a reality. 

Once again, thank you for including the voice of the VFW and its members; we 

look forward to continuing to work with you to improve the lives of America’s veterans and their families. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to respond 

to any questions you or the members of your subcommittee may have. Thank you. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Robert Madden, Assistant 

Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Although the Post-9/11 Bill was the single greatest benefit offered to the 

Post-9/11 veteran, the implementation fell far short of the needs of those new veterans. Delays in applying for and receiving benefits has been the single greatest 

failure during the implementation in the past year. The American Legion heard 

from hundreds of veterans and their families discussing the issue of delayed or no 

payment. These late payments caused veterans and families to drop out of school 

due to financial hardship. 

To alleviate some of these issues, the Department of Veterans Affairs has increased the number of claims processors and is implementing a new IT system to 

help streamline the claims process and should have a self-navigating system that 

veterans can access by December 2010. This will go a long way in addressing many 

of the preliminary problems that still plague veterans and their family members. 

The American Legion recommends communication between Regional Processing 

Offices (RPO) be uniform. There are schools that have campuses across the nation 

and are therefore using multiple RPOs for information. Institutions are receiving 

multiple policy protocols from separate RPOs for the same situation which in turn 

causes confusion for veterans and educational institutions. This process of getting 

different responses from separate RPOs needs to be addressed and communication 

must be accurate and similar across the Nation. 

In order to properly serve the veterans and families of this country, The American 

Legion recommends several changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Those changes include: 

Allowing housing allowance for distance learners; addition of vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job training and flight training; transfer of educational benefits to dependents of those who have retired from active duty, and inclusion of Title 32 Active 

Guard Reserves to receive Federal benefits under Chapter 33. 

No matter what era, we should not forget the sacrifice of those who served in our 

military. However, the latest generation of veterans and their families have experiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
61 

enced a new hardship and experience due to multiple deployments and a changing 

nature of war. These veterans deserve the highest quality of service when receiving 

benefits and should be granted the opportunity to choose their education and employment path when returning to school. 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion’s views on the 

status of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. The American 

Legion commends the subcommittee for holding a hearing to discuss this very important and timely issue. 

American men and women are serving in two wars, while also serving this great 

nation in various capacities across the globe. Veterans who have served since September 11, 2001 are entitled to education benefits, not just any education benefits, 

but the most comprehensive benefits since the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 

1944. The original WWII benefit is said to have produced 50 years of economic prosperity for America. With over 2 million servicemembers having served since 2001, 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill can do the same thing for this country and give this new 

‘‘Greatest Generation’’ an education. 

The American Legion has not only been a lead supporter of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, 

but also a concerned advocate during the implementation. The 111th Congress has 

held hearings on the long-term and short-term implementation strategies for administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). These 

hearings updated Congress on VA’s development of the information technology components for the new law and the progress made during implementation. The American Legion testified before Congress last year about its concerns regarding VA’s implementation strategies and urged VA to be ready to fulfill its administrative duties 

‘‘right the first time.’’ 

Since the passage and the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA had a 

rough and rocky start. Thinking they were fully prepared to implement the biggest 

changes in GI Bill history, VA set out to put their best foot forward in August 2009. 

They soon found that the implementation system was flawed and there was no easy 

way to process a Certificate of Eligibility or an actual claim. A processor for the old 

Montgomery GI Bill needed only around 30 minutes to process a claim, but for the 

components of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, this time ballooned to close to 2 hours per 

claim. This time-intensive process compounded by a lack of adequate staff fostered 

a significant backlog of education claims. 

Unfortunately, many veterans waited weeks and months just to get their Certificate of Eligibility, and even longer to actually receive benefits. These men and 

women gave up their jobs in order to better their employment chances by going to 

school. It should be noted, to be able to get the most out of the benefit, a veteran 

or family member needs to take a course load of over half-time. In the worst case 

scenarios, veterans who recently left the military were without a job and without 

their education benefit from VA. The American Legion received hundreds of calls 

and emails from veterans discussing their financial difficulties and the possibility 

of homelessness was sometimes mentioned. The American Legion responded to a 

number of these veterans with Temporary Financial Assistance, one of our many 

programs to assist veterans and their families. 

When the cries for assistance reached its highest levels,, VA responded and provided individuals who were in school an emergency payment of up to $3,000. The 

American Legion applauded and still agrees this was a smart decision to make, but 

now is seeing the backlash from this decision. Now, there are reports of veterans 

and their family members losing all of their future payments instead of the proposed $750.00 reduction VA promised from the payment plan. VA has taken steps 

to rectify this situation, but some of the damage has already been done. Many veterans and their families called The American Legion because they cannot get 

through to VA and need information. We take pride in assisting them, but need 

VA’s cooperation to get issues resolved. The American Legion believes there needs 

to be more oversight on decisions that are made to ensure proper implementation, 

so that the veteran or his/her family member is not the one who suffers. 

Another recurring issue is overpayment. There have been reports of schools being 

overpaid, which is why many schools are waiting for the add/drop period before 

sending in the veteran’s enrollment certification. In spite of this move by the 

schools, the veteran is still being overpaid; consequently, the schools send back the 

money, but it is not being reported back to the VA in a timely manner. Ultimately, 

the veteran is then denied their housing allowance and books stipend, until their 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
62 

payment is recouped by VA. This causes an undue burden for the veteran and his/ 

her family and causes, again, another financial hardship. Every time a mistake happens, it does not affect VA, but does manage to cause problems for the veteran. Closer oversight on these issues would be the fix to many of these problems. 

One of the main challenges VA faces is communication. One Regional Office (RO) 

says the veteran can do something one way and then another RO says the veteran 

cannot. Secondly, a veteran or family member will call the 1–800 numbers for education assistance and will ask a question. That same veteran will call back, get a 

different operator and ask the same question. What the veteran receives, on occasion, is multiple answers. The veteran needs to receive the same answer so he/she 

can properly navigate the education process. 

The American Legion also would like to bring to the Committee’s attention a flaw 

that exists in the Post-9/11 GI Bill. With all the great benefits the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

offers, it has unfortunately left out a few educational choices. The American Legion 

is a strong supporter of allowing the Post-9/11 GI Bill to be used for non-degree 

granting institutions. This employment path is a more traditional choice, but vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job training and flight training are not payable by the 

current bill (Post-9/11). This disparity has caused much concern for The American 

Legion. We have found that not every veteran has the time or is considering attending college. They might have a family and need to become gainfully employed as 

soon as possible, which is something that vocational, on-the-job training, apprenticeship and flight training offer. Instead, a veteran may choose a more traditional path 

and attend a non-degree institution, but cannot use their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits 

to complete these courses. Most of these education paths consist of a shorter training time and can lead to immediate employment. The American Legion believes that 

veterans should never be limited in the manner they use their educational benefits. 

The American Legion also sees other areas where the Post-9/11 GI Bill can be improved. Those who have served since September 11, 2001 and retired before the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill should be allowed to transfer their educational 

benefits to their dependents. We also note the increased utilization of online distance learning. Currently, those who attend classes strictly online are prohibited 

from receiving the housing allowance. These men and women take these classes due 

to the flexibility they offer. Veterans who attend these classes have families and 

may need flexibility to be able to advance their career and should be entitled to the 

housing allowance. The greatest equity issue is those men and women who served 

during the crisis of September 11, 2001. These Title 32 Active Guard Reserve members served under federal orders but were not allowed to include their federal time 

for eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. These men and women served valiantly and 

with distinction. This is a must fix and needs to be addressed immediately. 

Currently, there are two bills, H.R. 5933 and S. 3447, which are companion measures. These bills propose changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill to make the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill a stronger benefit for veterans and their families. The American Legion supports both of these bills. Veterans should be free to choose their school and get the 

education they believe is best for them and their family. 

Even with some challenges and missteps, The American Legion continues to ensure veterans and their families get the necessary assistance during this education 

transition. The American Legion recently held the ‘‘Veterans on Campus’’ education 

symposium, which tried to identify best practices on how to assist veterans in their 

transition from the military to college life. We found a large number of student-veterans and academia did not have sufficient information about the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

benefits. VA needs to provide more outreach to colleges and universities around the 

country to ensure these student-veterans have a full range of knowledge concerning 

their education benefits. The American Legion is excited about the final implementation of the new IT for veterans. We hope this IT solution helps resolve many of 

the application, payment and communication problems that have been experienced. 

Although the VA has taken many necessary steps in order to provide a fluid transition for veterans and their families, we have seen numerous bumps along the way. 

Sometimes, as in the case of the emergency payment, VA has had to make some 

tough choices to correct those problems. The American Legion will continue to monitor the continued transition for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this statement for 

the record. Again, thank you Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and 

Members of the Subcommittee for allowing The American Legion to present its 

views on this very important issue. 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
63 

Prepared Statement of Tim Embree, Legislative 

Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s over two hundred thousand 

members and supporters, I would like to thank you for allowing us to testify before 

your subcommittee. As a representative of IAVA, I also extend the gratitude of tens 

of thousands of our members who can now afford to attend school, and become the 

Next Greatest Generation. 

I. Executive Summary: 

Our work on the new GI Bill is not done. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a historic commitment to this generation of veterans and over 300,000 students have taken advantage of this hard earned benefit. But, while some student veterans are on the path 

to earning themselves a first class future, tens of thousands of veterans are being 

left behind. Too many young veterans find themselves unable to take advantage of 

these GI Bill benefits and many others, already using the new GI Bill, have had 

their benefits cut by needlessly complicated regulations in Chapter 33. In order to 

complete our work on the new GI Bill, IAVA recommends swift passage of H.R. 

5933, commonly referred to as the New GI Bill 2.0. 

New GI Bill 2.0 finishes the Post-9/11 GI Bill and includes: 

• Vocational Training: Invaluable job training for students studying at vocational schools. 

• Title 32 AGR: Grant National Guardsmen responding to national disasters 

full GI Bill credit. 

• Distance Learners: Provide living allowances for veterans in distance learning programs. 

• Tuition/Fees: Expand and simplify the Yellow Ribbon Program. 

• Active Duty: Include a book stipend for active duty students. 

Over the past year IAVA has helped thousands of veterans navigate through their 

GI Bill benefits and we have trained hundreds of schools on the ins and outs of the 

new GI Bill. Our daily interactions with student veterans and schools have revealed 

the following concerns regarding the VA’s handling of the new GI Bill. 

• Student veterans complete their assignments on time and so should 

the VA: Nine months late updating the new BAH rates and one month late 

publishing the 2010–11 tuition/fees chart. 

• Delays are imminent: 160,000 backlogged GI Bill claims, 60 percent more 

than any other time this decade with the exception of last year. This will 

mean unacceptably long wait times, yet again. 

• Processing remains plagued by repeated mistakes: Many veterans have 

been erroneously denied benefits and are forced to spend months trying to unravel the errors. 

• Lack of reliable information costs veterans: The irrevocable choice between the new and old GI Bill is worth thousands of dollars and VA still lacks 

good resources to help inform that choice. 

• Refunds of overpayments: There are no guidelines for schools to follow to 

repay the VA for erroneous tuition overpayments and this results in veterans 

having their entire GI Bill withheld. 

II. Introduction 

IAVA believes that by finishing the work Congress began two years ago, this historic commitment to our veterans will be remembered as one of the shrewdest investments in our country’s men and women in uniform for generations to come. 

Today’s veterans are our country’s leaders of tomorrow. Hundreds of thousands 

of combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have served honorably and are now 

looking to utilize the Post-9/11 GI Bill to begin the next chapter of their lives. 

Thanks to the most generous increase in education benefits since World War II 

these veterans and their families now have the opportunity to pursue a ‘‘first-class’’ 

education. 

IAVA has gained unique insight into where implementation of the New GI Bill 

has succeeded and where it has failed. For over two years, IAVA has been assisting 

student veterans navigate this generous, yet complicated, new benefit. Nearly 1 million people have visited our premier GI Bill resource, www.newgibill.org. We offer 

the most accurate benefits calculator, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and resources where veterans can find answers to their GI Bill questions. As we have statVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
64 

ed over and over again, the VA must improve their outreach. By working closely 

with IAVA and the VSO community the VA could be solving problems before they 

arise rather than constantly reacting to the latest crisis. 

On top of the VA’s rocky implementation, we recognize that the new GI Bill is 

still a work in progress. Once finished, the new GI Bill will be a shining moment 

in the history of our great republic. Everyday we wait to pass upgrades to the new 

GI Bill, tens of thousands of veterans are ineligible to access this new education 

benefit and many others using the new GI Bill have had their benefits cut by one 

of the many poorly written regulations in Chapter 33. 

III. Lessons Learned for the New GI Bill’s Sophomore Year 

IAVA has been cautioning student veterans to prepare for another rough autumn 

and has been pleading with the VA to be as transparent as possible. The VA has 

made some significant improvements in their handling of the new GI Bill since last 

year. However, IAVA is deeply concerned that the VA has been failing to communicate critical information to students and schools, missing key congressionally mandated deadlines and will likely have unacceptably long delays in the processing of 

GI Bill benefits again this semester. 

A. Student veterans complete their assignments on time and so should 

the VA. 

The VA has owed over 150,000 student veterans additional living allowance payments for over 9 months. In January the Department of Defense’s new housing 

rates took affect and in turn students attending over 4,000 colleges were due an increase in their living allowances. This increase amounted to over $200/month at 

some schools including Long Island University, University of Massachusetts and 

University of Connecticut. 

‘‘When are they going to adjust the BAH rates for 2010? No matter who I call 

or email about this issue, I never get a straight answer. I am currently living 

in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the rates were increased by $111 for my area as 

of Jan 1 2010. It is nearly August and they have yet to increase. Any info you 

can provide me with would be helpful.’’—Chris (IAVA Vet) 

Sadly, the VA’s only mention of how they would handle the new rate changes was 

a tweet from one of the VA’s many twitter accounts on December 18th and was not 

mentioned again for over 9 months. 

@DeptVetAffairs: For GI Bill students: BAH rates will remain the same to begin 

the spring semester. Any changes won’t happen until later in the spring. 

Phone calls to the GI Bill call center left veterans even more confused about when 

they could expect to be paid. IAVA believes that keeping veterans like Chris in the 

dark for over 9 months about their benefits is completely unacceptable. Thankfully, 

earlier this month the VA finally made a public announcement on their Web site 

outlining how they will handle this issue. 

The living allowance payments were not the only benefit the VA has been delinquent. The VA is mandated to issue the state tuition caps on August 1st of each 

year to help veterans and schools adequately plan for the fall semester. Unfortunately, the VA failed to publish this tuition chart for exactly a month. As a result, 

students started school with no idea what the new GI Bill would cover. Schools were 

asked to submit enrollment certifications and the VA would just process the tuition 

benefits later. Now the VA will have to go back and recertify all the new GI Bill 

claims they received in the month of August during the VA’s busiest season of the 

year. 

Why does this matter? Ask the student veterans attending schools in Minnesota like Northwestern College who are now on the hook to pay an additional $7,000 in 

tuition this year. These students started classes in late August only to see their tuition benefits drop $300/credit a week later. Northwestern was likely deferring those 

tuition costs in the hopes that the GI Bill would be paying at least as much as last 

year, but now those students will have to shell out an additional $7,000 just to stay 

in class. The VA will claim that they did not know all the tuition caps until September 1st, but they did know many of them and should have published what they 

had as soon as they knew them. 

‘‘I just talked to the financial aid director at my school here in St. Paul, Minnesota. I found out today that the VA has cut the MN tuition cap at $450 per 

credit. It was listed on their Web site as $750 until this week. Partially as a result of the $750 rate, I made the decision to move my family from California to 

Minnesota. Now I am faced with suddenly receiving $4200 less per semester in 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
65 

assistance than I had anticipated . . . . My school choice was directly affected 

by the amount that I thought I would be receiving, based upon the VA’s officially 

posted rates. Also, there are those who have barely managed to budget enough 

money to go to school. Now telling them that they will be receiving significantly 

less than they had been depending on could force them out of school. I understand that budgets are tight everywhere. However, I feel cheated by finding out 

after the fact. This is information they should have given us months ago.’’— 

Aaron (IAVA Vet) 

B. Student veterans need to know that GI Bill delays are imminent. 

‘‘When I called today to check on my GI Bill status, the telephone advisor told 

me that due to the upgrade that put them behind for about a week they are estimating it can take around 41 days for them to process the enrollment information and get the funds to the schools and vets.’’—Brent (IAVA Vet) 

Student veterans enrolling in school this Fall should be prepared to wait a long 

time for their GI Bill benefits to process. The VA has a GI Bill backlog of over 

185,000 claims, nearly 50 percent more than any other time this decade, except last 

year. And although the VA has kept the number of outstanding new GI Bill claims 

at a steady rate (∼18,000) the old GI Bill users are suffering because of it (over 

168,000). These delays are unacceptable and continue to put too much pressure on 

student veterans. They should be trying to focus on their studies and not worrying 

about keeping a roof over their heads due to the VA’s inability to manage information. The VA should also publish the expected wait times prominently on their Web 

site, to help student veterans have realistic expectations of when their benefits will 

arrive. 

IAVA recommends the VA implement the following concrete ideas: 1) Post a waiting time widget on the VA’s GI Bill homepage saying, ‘‘Now working on GI Bill 

claims from (fill in the date)’’ and 2) Reinstitute the practice of disclosing the date 

of the oldest pending GI Bill claim in the Monday Morning Workload report. 

C. Processing of new GI Bill claims remain plagued by repeated mistakes. 

In the haste to clear the deck of GI Bill claims, many veterans have been erroneously denied benefits and are forced to spend months trying to unravel the errors. 

‘‘Since January of this year I have been receiving letters that I owe the VA for 

2 semesters that they claim I dropped out. I never did and have been given the 

run around by both the VA and the school but neither side tell me anything. I 

have been doing this for 6 months and worst of all is that they are taking my 

entire check leaving me with nothing to purchase books or to use to pay bills. 

Because of this I am in extreme debt, I have a two-month-old baby, which needs 

diapers and baby wipes and have fallen into depression again because the creditors call me constantly asking for payment. I am not working at the time because 

I want to focus on school. I am getting disability and work-study payments, but 

even so I keep going in the negative side in my bank account. I have no clue how 

else to pressure the school and the VA to promptly fix the situation and give me 

back the money they wrongfully took. If you can’t help me could you please send 

me to someone who can.’’ IAVA Vet 

IAVA contacted the VA regional office on this student veteran’s behalf. They corrected his file, erased his debt and issued him a back payment of over $7,900. He 

told IAVA that the VA finally paid him on his daughter’s birthday and that he can 

now buy her a real birthday present. And while IAVA is eternally grateful to the 

Regional Offices for continuing to solve the GI Bill issues we send their way, this 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1 here 61757.001
66 

story is just the tip of the iceberg. Many other veterans don’t even know there has 

been a mistake or they give up when no one seems to be willing to take up their 

cause. IAVA believes that the VA must do an immediate audit of their GI Bill 

claims processing and publically announce their error rates. Veterans who are fighting with the VA about their benefits should know that they aren’t alone. 

D. Lack of reliable information costs veterans. 

Veterans making the irrevocable choice between the old and new GI Bill are 

forced to make that decision without immediate, reliable access to key information 

that may affect tens of thousands of dollars in their education benefits. 

‘‘My VA rep at my school told me to apply for the new post 9/11 GI Bill because 

I had already collected the 36 months on the old GI Bill. So, I applied for the 

new GI bill to get the extra 12 months of benefits and I just received an approval 

letter for 3 days of the new GI bill benefits because I still had 3 days left on 

the old GI bill.’’—Charles (IAVA Vet) 

If Charles had known that he had 3 days remaining on the old GI Bill he could 

have simply waited an extra couple of days before he applied and he would have 

been able to attend school for at least another academic year under the new GI Bill. 

Unfortunately for Charles the lack of good information meant that he simply lost 

his new GI Bill benefits. 

Charles’ story is a cautionary tale for all student veterans and more importantly 

the VA. While the VA has spent most of their focus making sure veterans know that 

their choice to use the new GI Bill is ‘‘irrevocable’’ (bold and italics on the VA form), 

they have failed to show student veterans what that actually means to them personally. For example, the VA’s GI Bill benefits estimator is an inexcusable tool for a 

Department that has spent millions on GI Bill information technology. This tool 

does not help veterans compare benefits between the old and GI Bill in any meaningful way. 

‘‘How do I determine what the amount is for so I can make sure I’m getting the 

proper benefits? In other words, I want a statement. I called the VA and they 

told me ‘‘no’’—there was no statement and I would have to determine the benefits 

myself by pro-rating book costs, BAH, etc. There must be an easier way....’’—Jonathan (IAVA Vet) 

The VA has testified numerous times that they are scheduled to unveil a student 

portal for veterans to track their GI Bill benefits by the end of the year. Many student veterans and schools have requested this functionality and IAVA sincerely 

hopes that the VA meets its own internal deadline of Dec 2011. However, IAVA is 

deeply concerned that veterans and schools have not been involved in the development of this new functionality. We believe that the VA should immediately engage 

student veterans, campus officials and veterans groups during the final stages of development. IAVA also strongly encourages the VA to allow school certifying officials 

access to student information. More often than not the school certifying official is 

the only source of GI Bill information the veteran ever receives. 

E. The VA has no structure for schools to refund of overpayments. 

Some errors in the certification and processing of GI Bill claims are inevitable, 

and we must do everything we can to minimize those errors. However, to not have 

a contingency plan when they do occur is extremely irresponsible and has taken a 

profoundly negative toll on student veterans who have been affected. If a school has 

been overpaid there is no mechanism for the school to repay the VA directly. While 

the school starts the refund process to the student veteran, the VA will immediately 

put a hold on the student’s GI Bill benefits whether they were aware of the overpayment or not. Take the following case for example: 

‘‘My school was underpaid and sent the VA a bill for a little over $200. The VA 

thinks that is all they had to pay and sent me a letter saying I have to pay all 

the money back. I did not change classes or even drop any. I have tried to call 

them but the phone is busy; I emailed them but they said to call them in the 

reply. What am I supposed to do? School starts Fri . . . I just got the letter today 

and my school said I have to contact a rep myself. The appeal letter said it will 

be 3+ months for it to process. Please Help!!’’—Mickel (IAVA Vet) 

One month later: 

‘‘I just withdrew from school because I did not have the money to drive there 

without the VA paying me. I had no choice. The school will try to send back 

every cent of the money they paid them.’’ 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
67 

Four months later, with the help of the Atlanta Regional Office, we were finally 

able to get the VA creditors off Mickel’s back and get him the money he deserved; 

however, he had already dropped out of school and was even further behind his civilian counterparts. 

Student veterans like Mickel deserve better. In order to prevent this from happening in the future, the VA should develop a simple process for schools to refund 

overpayments directly to the VA and improve communication between the Education Liaison Representatives (ELRs) and the school certifying officials. 

IV. H.R. 5933: New GI Bill 2.0 

H.R. 5933 will improve the new GI Bill and ensure that all student veterans have 

access to this generous education benefit. By simplifying and streamlining the administrative rules, H.R. 5933 would enable the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) 

to process GI Bill claims in a timely manner. H.R. 5933, which we have come to 

call the ‘‘New GI Bill 2.0,’’ is a comprehensive effort to address the concerns of tens 

of thousands of student veterans and their families by including: 

• Vocational Training: Offering valuable job training for students studying at 

vocational schools 

• Title 32 AGR: Granting National Guardsmen responding to national disasters full GI Bill credit 

• Distance Learners: Providing living allowances for veterans in distance 

learning programs 

• Tuition/Fees: Expanding and simplifying the Yellow Ribbon Program 

• Active Duty: Including a book stipend for active duty students 

Even the original WWII GI Bill needed a tune up like H.R. 5933. One year after 

the passage of the WWII GI Bill the House Committee on World War Veterans Legislation (an early predecessor to this committee) conducted a marathon four day 

long hearing to review the effectiveness of this new benefit. 

In a small touch of irony, veterans groups like the Legion, VFW, and DAV collectively asked the committee, as we are today, to upgrade the WWII GI Bill to include 

vocational schools, correspondence courses and to simplify the tuition benefit. 

Congress promptly responded and passed H.R. 3749, ‘‘To Amend the Servicemen’s 

Readjustment Act of 1944.’’ These upgrades finished the work Congress had started 

and secured the WW II GI Bill as one of the greatest investments in the 20th century. It was actually the amended version of the WWII GI Bill that helped build 

America’s middle class and laid the foundation for what Tom Brokaw dubbed the 

‘‘Greatest Generation.’’ IAVA believes that just like the WWII GI Bill, the Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill needs the comprehensive improvements in H.R. 5933 to become the 

smartest investment in the 21st century and to help lay the foundation for the next 

greatest generation. 

A. Invaluable Professional Job Training 

H.R. 5933 will help veterans access valuable job training by granting Post-9/11 

GI Bill benefits to veterans in vocational, apprenticeship and On-The-Job training 

(OJT) programs. IAVA member Charles Conrad returned home from war to face a 

bleak economy. He had finished two tours, was released from his stop-loss orders 

and was ready to begin the next chapter of his young life. Charles moved to Pittsburgh and enrolled in the Pennsylvania Gunsmith School, a well-known vocational 

school founded in 1949. Charles, like countless other veterans, assumed that by 

combining his military experience with a vocational certificate, he would make himself marketable in today’s rough job scene. Unfortunately, Charles was let down by 

the new GI Bill. Currently, the Post-9/11 GI Bill does not pay for trade schools— 

and now Charles is left struggling to pay down piles of bills. 

I was depending on the housing allowance and without it I can’t even afford the 

school . . . It’s a slap in the face to me that I can’t use the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

. . . It’s like saying a trade school isn’t good enough for the new GI Bill, but 

it is for the old GI Bill. Is there any way that trade schools will ever be allowed 

under the new GI Bill? 

Most people don’t realize that a majority of WWII veterans used their GI Bill benefits to attend vocational schools. Although there are a limited number of vocational 

programs at the local community colleges currently authorized, allowing veterans to 

enroll in the vocational program of their choice would enable all of our war-fighters 

to use their hard-earned new GI Bill benefits. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
68 

B. Full Credit for Full Time Served 

H.R. 5933 will help National Guard servicemembers by granting full GI Bill credit 

for full-time service. New GI Bill 2.0 classifies state activations for national disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill) and full-time Title 32 Active 

Guard Reserve (AGR) service as qualifying service. This correction will help almost 

30,000 Army National Guard and 13,500 Air National Guard servicemembers serving on Title 32 or ‘‘state’’ orders. This vital improvement will also ensure that the 

thousands of National Guard troops from Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi who are currently protecting our coastline from the oil spewing in the Gulf 

will receive credit towards their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit. 

IAVA member Sergeant First Class (SFC) Bradford Mingle has been wearing our 

country’s uniform every day for the past 19 years, including during a recent tour 

in Afghanistan. SFC Mingle is part of the Active Guard and Reserve program 

(AGR), which means he works full-time for the National Guard. Imagine SFC Mingle’s surprise and anger when he applied for the New GI Bill, only to have the VA 

tell him he hadn’t served long enough to qualify for the full benefits. 

I am an AGR soldier with 19 years active duty but I’m not qualified to get what 

an Active Army Soldier gets? Is our service not worth as much? Why are AGR 

Soldiers always left out? 

According to the current law, only one of SFC Mingle’s 19 years of active duty 

service actually counted toward his GI Bill eligibility. Yet a full-time reservist doing 

the same job as SFC Mingle would qualify for the full GI Bill simply because his 

or her checks were paid for by the federal government, rather than the state government. Same uniform, same service—vastly different benefits. 

C. Fairness for Disabled Veterans Utilizing Distance Learning 

Many disabled veterans and single parents are attending online courses to achieve 

their dream of a college degree. But, under the current rules, even if they are taking 

a full course load, they do not qualify to receive the new GI Bill’s substantial monthly living allowance. If these veterans were able to take just one course at a local 

college, they would qualify for the full living allowance. Yet enrolling in a course 

at a brick-and-mortar institution is nearly impossible for a single mother simultaneously struggling to keep food on the table or for a disabled veteran who cannot 

navigate a flight of stairs without assistance. 

IAVA member Specialist (SPC) Weaver was awarded a bronze star for his meritorious service during two tours in Iraq. He is currently at home recovering from 

the fractured spine he sustained after being ejected from a moving vehicle. SPC 

Weaver suffers from vertigo, hearing problems and loss of mobility. Despite his injuries, SPC Weaver still dreams of completing his education and has been looking to 

attend college online, where he can complete his degree at his own pace. In spite 

of his service, SPC Jeffrey Weaver cannot benefit from the New GI Bill in its current form. 

This seems quite absurd as it is fact that many service-disabled veterans are undergoing treatments and have special needs. Although I am not totally disabled, 

because of my current conditions, it would be nearly impossible to collect on the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlements. This seems to be an issue we need to raise to Congress. 

A living allowance for students of online institutions would help veterans to avoid 

having to choose between keeping a roof over a family’s head and concentrating on 

being a successful student. The allowance would enable them to provide for their 

families while increasing their future earning potential through education. The New 

GI Bill was supposed to encourage student veterans to focus on their education and 

not their financial situation—but without the New GI Bill 2.0 upgrade, student veterans pursuing degrees through distance learning are left out in the cold. 

D. Simplify the Yellow Ribbon Program 

New GI Bill 2.0 simplifies the tuition benefit by abolishing the confusing state cap 

program and replacing it with a simple promise. Under the current form of the New 

GI Bill, the tuition benefits are confusing, and completely unpredictable. In California, tuition caps have been raised three times this year alone. Worse, nationwide 

tuition caps have fluctuated wildly since last year and states like Florida and Minnesota have seen their benefits drop for no apparent reason. 

Recently, in front of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, the VA admitted to 

‘‘delays in determining the 2009–2010 maximum tuition, and fee rates resulted in 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
69 

delayed processing of payments for students attending school in those states.’’ The 

VA later said that reforming the tuition and fees benefit was its top priority fix for 

the New GI Bill. Considering that the VA was late exactly a month publishing the 

new tuition/fees chart this year, we need a GI Bill benefit that is easy to calculate 

and is easily understood by those who use the benefit as well as those who distribute it. 

Under the proposed New GI Bill 2.0, if a student veteran attends a public school, 

the New GI Bill will pay for the entire cost of tuition and fees—no questions asked. 

If a student veteran attends a private school, the VA will pay a nationally recognized, baseline amount. If a private school is more expensive than the national baseline, the school is encouraged to take part in the yellow ribbon program in order 

to eliminate the remaining gap in education costs. 

IAVA member Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Brian Pummill is in an extreme, remote 

location in Afghanistan. LTC Pummill should be focused solely on the mission at 

hand, but his thoughts are back at home as he tries to explain to his college-bound 

daughter how the New GI Bill’s tuition benefit will work. Even after a long career 

successfully navigating military bureaucracy, LTC Pummill is thoroughly perplexed 

by the VA’s confusing tuition and fee caps. 

I don’t understand how to calculate how much TUITION AND FEES the VA 

will pay Saint Mary’s College . . . I see calculations that just compute this by 

$321/credit hour, but this doesn’t come close to the MAXIMUM FEES BY TERM 

of $12,438.00 indicated for SMC. Since SMC’s TUITION AND FEES for 2010– 

2011 are the same for ALL FULL–TIME STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE 

CREDIT HOURS THEY ARE TAKING, why wouldn’t we take the Maximum 

fees by term ($12,438), multiply that by 2 ($24,876), then divide by 9 months 

($2,764/month), to calculate the per month value of the GI Bill at SMC, if that 

is the actual cost of Tuition and Fees to attend SMC. The same calculation by 

the credit hour, assuming you take 32 credit hours per year, is only $321.75 

times 32, which is only: $10,296.00. How does a student qualify to be reimbursed 

at the MAXIMUM TUITION AND FEES PER TERM, instead of by the credit 

hour—at SMC, the difference between these two calculations is staggering. 

H.R. 5933 will simplify the benefit and help servicemembers like LTC Pummill 

get their mind back on the mission. 

E. Other Improvements to the New GI Bill 

New GI Bill 2.0 is an essential comprehensive upgrade, involving changes large 

and small. These changes are vital to the academic success of student veterans pursuing a higher education. H.R. 5933 will also: 

• Grant active duty students a book stipend worth $1,000/year 

• Increase Vocational Rehabilitation monthly benefits by up to $780/month 

• Reimburse students who take multiple accreditation/certification tests 

• Allow enlistment kickers to be transferred to dependents 

• Increase school reporting fees 

• Simplify the types of discharges that qualify for benefits 

VII: Conclusion 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill, or ‘‘New GI Bill,’’ will be remembered as one of the greatest 

investments in our country’s veterans for generations to come if we act now and finish the work this committee began two years ago. History has shown us the importance of investing in our country’s veterans, and IAVA applauds the phenomenal 

work this committee continues to do on behalf of our nation’s veterans and their 

families. 

IAVA is proud to speak on behalf of the thousands of veterans coming home every 

day. We work tirelessly so veterans know we have their back. Together, with this 

Congress and the Department of Veteran Affairs, we can guarantee that every veteran is confident that America has their back. 

Thank you. 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
70 

Prepared Statement of Captain Mark Krause, USN (Ret.), 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Program Manager, Space 

and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic, Department of the Navy, 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the current status of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Chapter 33 Long Term 

Solution (CH 33 LTS). My testimony will address the current status of the LTS, critical milestone completion, program challenges, requirements for legislative fixes, future updates, and the ability of the LTS to support future policy changes. 

Current Status of Long Term Solution Development Program 

The VA/SPAWAR CH 33 LTS Team delivered and deployed Releases 1.0 and 2.0 

this year on the planned critical milestone dates. All CH 33 Veteran Claim Examiners (VCEs) have been transitioned from the Interim Solution to the LTS to process 

CH 33 educational benefits claims. Since January 2010, the Team has accomplished 

the following: 

• Enabled the VA to deliver CH33 benefits via a centralized web-based system 

that implements a flexible rules-based engine. This will allow the VA to implement future changes and enhancements to CH33 policy and legislation in 

a more timely and efficient manner. • The VA/SPAWAR Team successfully implemented Agile methodology within 

the VA and have established an effective, engaged, and collaborative governance process to prioritize capability development, resolve issues and make 

timely decisions. • Leveraged our Agile approach to implement additional and unplanned scope 

changes: Fry Amendment, Letter Generation, FY–9/10 retro-active housing 

rate adjustment, significant Interim Solution data errors, data conversion, 

switching from the planned interface with the Financial Accounting System 

(FAS) to the older Benefits Delivery Network (BDN), developing a user authentication solution due to the unavailability of the Benefits Enterprise Platform (BEP), and assuming an expanded role in interface development with 

VA legacy systems. 

Over the last several months the VA/SPAWAR CH 33 LTS Team has continued 

to ‘‘peel back the onion’’ to uncover and define more detailed CH 33 LTS requirements and processes. This discovery revealed a number of factors that increased the 

complexity and scope required by the LTS. A summary of these discoveries include: 

• Automating business rules and streamlining the process to adjudicate claims 

were more complex than originally anticipated. • Converting and remediating data conversion errors from the Interim Solution 

into Chapter 33 LTS was more challenging than planned. • Enhancing existing VA systems required to provide data to the Chapter 33 

LTS has proven more difficult than expected. 

In upcoming months LTS development will focus on providing system interfaces 

and capabilities to automate and streamline the claimant institution enrollment validation process as well as initiating and providing CH33 payment instructions to the 

Department of the Treasury. 

Critical Milestones 

To date, all critical milestones have been met. LTS functionality planned for each 

critical milestone was based on a limited understanding of the requirements 14 

months ago. On a bi-weekly basis at each Sprint Review, new requirements/user stories and changes in scope were discussed and re-prioritized thru the governance 

process. Since then, the CH 33 LTS Agile process has continued to better define program requirements, revealing additional technical complexities/challenges during 

Releases 1.0 and 2.0. 

Due to the four extra weeks that were required to complete the data conversion 

and housing rate adjustment and the complexity of the BDN financial interface, we 

expect to deliver the VAONCE (VA online certification of enrollment) interface on 

30 Sept for user testing, and do not anticipate delivering the complete functionality 

planned for Release 3.0 (automating the financial transaction/authorization process 

currently required to authorize payments for claims and a financial interface with 

BDN) until the Nov/Dec 2010 time frame. The requirements for Release 4.0, scheduled for December 2010, are still being defined. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
71 

Future LTS Updates 

Future updates to the CH 33 LTS will be determined by VA leadership. CH 33 

LTS is a rules-based system that will support future changes to the program such 

as the expansion of benefits, changes to payment procedures, and changes to policy 

and law. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I am pleased to answer any 

questions you or any of the other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director, 

Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members 

of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide an update on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) implementation of the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code). My testimony will address the current status of education claims processing for fall 2010 enrollments and 

critical milestones for VA’s Long Term Solution (LTS). Joining me today is Mr. 

Mark Krause, VA Program Manager for the Department of the Navy’s Space and 

Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic (SPAWAR), who will discuss the implementation of the LTS. 

As the Subcommittee Members know, the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most extensive 

educational assistance program authorized since the original GI Bill was signed into 

law in 1944. Secretary Shinseki and the entire Department are committed to making sure all Servicemembers, Veterans, and their family Members eligible for this 

important benefit receive it in a timely manner so they can focus on what is most 

important: their education. We greatly appreciate the guidance and support of this 

Subcommittee, and Congress as a whole, as we continue our efforts to implement 

this important legislation. 

Current Workload and Processing 

Our focus is on serving our Veterans. As we have made changes in how we process claims and in how we implement the LTS, above all else, the driving force in 

our decisionmaking is to ensure that we provide the fastest and most accurate education benefits possible. 

I am pleased to report that VA has made tremendous strides in delivering Post9/11 GI Bill benefits in a timely and accurate manner. We have also made significant progress in the development and deployment of our new processing and payment system. As of the end of August last year, VA had processed payments for only 

8,185 students for the fall 2009 semester. For the current fall term, VA has already 

processed payments for more than 135,000 students. The average time to process 

an enrollment certification as, of August 31, was 10 days, down from 28 days 1 year 

ago. 

In June and August, we successfully deployed releases 2 and 2.1 of the LTS. 

Through these deployments, we successfully converted over 600,000 chapter 33 

claimant records from our interim processing system to the LTS. 

We also added greater functionality to that originally planned for the LTS. Its 

functionality was expanded to enable payment of retroactive housing allowance adjustments for individuals with Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rates that had 

increased between 2009 and 2010. Additionally, the LTS was improved to automatically generate letters to individuals that provide information about their benefits. 

The LTS was also enhanced to facilitate claims processing for Fry Scholarship recipients. VA is now processing all Post-9/11 GI Bill claims in the new system, thereby replacing the interim solution and its associated manual processing tools. 

Our work is far from over, and, as the Members know, we continue to experience 

challenges. We have been unable to deliver all functionality in accordance with the 

timeline we developed 2 years ago. Although we are processing all Post-9/11 GI Bill 

claims in the LTS, functionality to automate key portions of the process has been 

delayed. The interfaces with the VA Online Certification of Enrollment (VA ONCE) 

and the Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) payment system, previously scheduled for 

September 30, 2010, are now scheduled for October 30, 2010, and December 31, 

2010, respectively. These delays are due to increased functionality needed to improve immediate claims processing capabilities, challenges with conversion of data 

from the interim system to the LTS, and a more complete understanding of the complexities of the interface with BDN. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
72 

Additionally, by working with our key stakeholders, we continue to learn what is 

needed and make positive changes. We are working to improve our debt-management processes—ensuring that refunded payments are accurately credited to overpayments and ensuring that overpayments are handled in an effective manner— 

thus minimizing negative impacts on students’ pursuit of their educational goals. 

Our guiding principle for system development and deployment has been, and will 

continue to be, to ensure that the deployment schedule and delivered functionality 

do not have a negative impact on our ability to pay Veterans. 

Fall 2010 Enrollment 

Effective August 1, 2009, section 1002 of Public Law 111–32 expanded the Post9/11 GI Bill to include the children of Servicemembers who die in the line of duty. 

This new authority, known as the ‘‘Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship,’’ is now available for the children of Servicemembers who died in the line 

of duty since September 10, 2001. Eligible individuals can receive 36 months of entitlement. VA began accepting applications for this program on May 1, 2010. As of 

September 1, 2010, VA has processed approximately 280 Fry Scholarship claims. 

On June 3, 2010, VA sent a notice to school certifying officials informing them 

that they may submit enrollment certifications for training pursued during the fall 

semester even if they do not know a student’s actual tuition and fee charges. Upon 

receipt of the student’s actual charges, the certifying official was asked to submit 

an amended enrollment certification to VA with the corrected information. This will 

ensure that students receive their Post-9/11 GI Bill housing allowance and books 

and supplies stipend in a timely manner for the fall semester. 

As of August 30, 2010, VA has received fall enrollment certifications for more 

than 200,000 individuals, of which approximately 135,000 have been processed. We 

have exceeded our claims processing productivity expectations for the fall 2010 enrollment period. We set a goal of processing an average of 6 Post-9/11 GI Bill claims 

per employee per day, or 20 non-Post-9/11 GI Bill claims per employee per day. We 

are currently averaging 9.5 Post-9/11 GI Bill claims and 25.4 non-Post-9/11 GI Bill 

claims processed per employee per day. The overall volume of claims completed per 

day has dramatically improved over last year. During the fall 2009 enrollment, VA 

was processing an average of 2,000 claims for all benefit programs per day. We are 

currently processing more than 10,000 claims per day for all benefit programs 

Payments Since Inception of Program 

Since August 1, 2009, VA has paid more than $4.7 billion in Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for approximately 340,000 individuals. From August 1, 2009 to July 31, 2010, 

VA paid $697 million in tuition and fee benefits to public schools, $618 million to 

private for-profit schools, and $437 million to private non-profit schools. VA also 

paid a total of $41.7 million under the Yellow Ribbon program. More than 66,000 

students have applied to use benefits transferred to them by their spouses or parents. 

Long Term Solution 

VA partnered with the SPAWAR to develop an end-to-end claims processing solution that utilizes rules-based, industry-standard technologies, for the delivery of 

education benefits. This is our long-term strategy for implementing the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. The Post-9/11 GI Bill contains eligibility rules and benefit determinations that 

will work well with rules-based technology that requires minimal human intervention. 

VA’s automated system is being released in four phases to ensure robustness and 

stability. Release 1 of this effort, which was deployed on March 31, 2010, was limited to a ‘‘pilot’’ release and delivered the capability to complete new original claims; 

automatically calculate awards including tuition and fees, housing, books and supplies, Yellow Ribbon, and Montgomery GI Bill—Active Duty and Reserve Educational Assistance Program kickers; and automatically calculate awards for overlapping terms and intervals. 

VA deployed Release 2 of the Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS to the Regional Processing 

Offices (RPO) on June 30, 2010. This release allowed VA to process changes in enrollment information, claims for Fry Scholarship students, and claims for transfers 

of entitlement. This functionality also allowed for expanded letter generation from 

the new system. Additionally, data conversion from the Interim Solution Front End 

Tool database to the LTS occurred for 153,000 cases without payments. Development of this release and the data conversion activities were more complex than expected, and not all of the originally planned functionality was delivered on June 30, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
73 

2010. In order to minimize the need to manually reconcile data or BAH payments, 

a subsequent Release 2.1 was developed to complete the data conversion process for 

all remaining cases, conduct BAH payment adjustments, and provide any remaining 

Release 2 functionality. 

Release 2.1 was deployed on August 23, 2010. This release replaced the 

functionality of the interim solution and associated manual processing tools. Release 

2.1 converted the approximately 393,000 records from the Interim Solution and 

made BAH adjustments for approximately 150,000 individuals. Beneficiaries received BAH adjustments on or about September 7, 2010. Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries had received housing allowances based upon the 2009 BAH rates until September 1, 2010, due to limitations of our manual processing procedures. Release 2.1 

allowed for the transition to 2010 BAH rates, and generated retroactive payments 

to compensate students for any increase in housing rates due, since the Department 

of Defense’s implementation of the new rates in January 2010. Other major 

functionality included in Release 2.1 included capability for reconciliation of converted data, and batch interfaces of converted data to the BDN and the LTS. Currently, Veterans Claims Examiners at the four RPOs are processing Post-9/11 GI 

Bill claims using the LTS. 

The delay of Release 2.1 of the LTS affected future releases. Release 3 was originally scheduled for deployment on September 30, 2010; however, this schedule date 

will be adjusted. The realignment of priorities with respect to BAH 2010 adjusted 

payments, data conversion, extensive testing required for Release 2.1, and the complexity of interfacing with the legacy BDN will impact the range of functionality 

that can be delivered in Releases 3 and 4. VA is examining the deliverable schedule 

to determine the functional elements that are achievable by December 2010. It is 

anticipated that the delay in Release 3 will also impact Release 4, which was originally scheduled for December 2010. SPAWAR will determine the impact to Release 

4 after completing an assessment of the Release 3 schedule. 

The LTS is based on industry standard service-oriented architecture. This provides a high degree of integration potential and interoperability meaning the system 

will be able to adapt to future needs. Additionally, the LTS is based on a rules engine that is modifiable to account for future needs. While the system is inherently 

flexible, it is not possible for VA to determine a specific timeframe to adapt to required changes until the precise changes are defined from a functional requirements 

perspective. Therefore, VA is unable to commit to being able to implement potential 

changes within a specific timeframe. VA believes a generally accepted timeline of 

24–36 months to incorporate significant system changes should be considered. 

Outreach—Summer/Fall 2010 

VA continues to conduct a nationwide outreach and media campaign focused on 

two goals: to increase general awareness of its education programs, emphasizing the 

Post 9/11 GI Bill; and to provide eligible participants with clear and easily accessible information through the GI Bill Web site (www.GIBILL.va.gov). 

Some of the principal components of the campaign will facilitate the following improvements: 

• Establish a basic strategy and plan, with a single cohesive message and pathway to the GI Bill Web site; 

• Revamp and update the GI Bill Web site for ease of use and navigation; 

• Reach advertising visibility targets of 20 percent for national general awareness and 80 percent for our direct customers; and 

• Enhance existing social-media platforms like our Post-9/11 GI Bill Facebook 

page to include campaign material. 

In the fall of 2009 and again this year, VA placed ads highlighting the Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill in print and Web outlets in an effort to reach eligible participants and 

key stakeholders, like higher education personnel. Ads were placed in magazines 

such as Marine Corps Times and Chronicle of Higher Education. Web ads were 

placed on Web sites such as GIJobs.com and Military.com. 

In addition, VA also partnered with NASCAR to increase awareness of the Post9/11 GI Bill. Working with The Racer’s Group (TRG) Motorsports, we placed the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill logo and Web address on the rear panel (TV Panel) of the #71 

racecar of Bobby Labonte for the Coca-Cola 600 during Memorial Day weekend, 

which was broadcast on Sunday, May 30, 2010, on the Fox Network. Additionally, 

the Speed Channel broadcast the practice sessions live on Saturday afternoon, May 

29, 2010. 

Our return on investment for participating in NASCAR was very positive. An estimated 6.5 million people watched the race, 165,000 attended the race, and approxiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
74 

mately 700,000 Servicemembers deployed overseas watched and listened to the race 

broadcast over the Armed Forces TV and Radio Network. Hits to the GI Bill Web 

site increased by 29 percent Saturday—the day before the race—and 34 percent during the race. Additional coverage of the race, mentioning the Post-9/11 GI Bill, was 

also in USA Today, the New York Post, NASCAR.com, Motorsports.com, Twitter, 

and Facebook. 

ESPN and NASCAR studies show that one-third of the average 6.5 million television viewers are Veterans or on active duty, and most NASCAR fans have an 

influencer relationship with a Veteran. NASCAR’s strong influence in both rural 

and Active Duty/Deployed audiences are in full alignment with the goals of our outreach plan. 

Building upon the success of the Coca Cola 600 race, the Post-9/11 GI Bill was 

also featured at the September 10 and 11 NASCAR races in Richmond, Virginia. 

The race weekend was officially called ‘‘The Post-9/11 GI Bill Weekend at Richmond 

International Raceway.’’ The GI Bill logo and Web address was prominently featured for the entire race weekend and in pre- and post-event media coverage. 

Conclusion 

While recognizing we will not meet all of the key milestones in our aggressive development and deployment schedule for the LTS, VA is nevertheless proud of its 

achievements in overcoming significant challenges and successfully transitioning 

from an inadequate temporary system to a state-of-the-art processing system that 

promises to deliver significantly improved automation and consistency. VA has 

shown dramatic improvement over the last year in its ability to deliver timely and 

accurate benefits derived from this important legislation. Recognizing that much of 

the fall enrollment period is still before us, we remain vigilant and focused on ensuring we are timely in meeting the needs of our Veterans. We are indebted to the 

Subcommittee for its consistent support. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or any of the other Members of the Committee may have. 

GI BILL UPDATE 

September 16, 2010 

AGENDA 

• Current Workload and Processing 

• Fall Enrollment Progress 

• Expenditures 

• Long Term Solution (LTS) 

• Outreach 

Ch 33 Then and Now: Fall Progress 

Fall 2010 Enrollment 

• Productivity exceeding goal 

• Chap 33 at 9.5/day/VCE (Goal is 6) 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here 61757.002
75 

• Non Chap 33 at 25.4/day/VCE (Goal is 20) 

• One year ago, 2,000 claims for all benefit programs per day. Today, over 

10,000 claims for all benefit programs per day. 

• Average of 24 days to process chapter 33 originals, and 14 days for chapter 

33 enrollment certifications 

Chapter 33 Benefits Since Inception 

• As of 9/1/2010, VA has paid over $4.7 billion to 340,000 individuals and their 

schools 

• Approximately $2.1B to schools and $2.6B to students 

• Between August 1, 2009 and July 31, 2010, VA paid a total of $1.75B to 

schools: 

• $618M to for-profit schools 

• $437M to private, non-profit schools 

• $697M to public schools 

• $41.7M of the above figures was paid under the Yellow Ribbon Program 

LTS: Expected vs. Actual Functionality 

Expected Functionality Actual Functionality 

R1: Replace functionality of FET and Job Aid; Adjudicate original and supplemental claims. 3/30/2010 R1: Replaced by Limited Release 1—Pilot release to 

subset of users; New original claims only. 3/30/2010 

R2: Expansion of R1 functionality and automated 

data feeds for claim and Veteran information. 6/30/ 

2010 

R2: Replace functionality of FET and Job Aid; Adjudicate original and supplemental claims. Converted 

150,000 non-pay records from FET to LTS. 6/30/ 

2010 

R2.1: Converted 393,000 records with payments from 

FET to LTS. Adjusted BAH rates and authorized 

retroactive payments for 153,000 students. 8/23/ 

2010 

R3: Automated data feeds to financial processing system and school enrollment interface. 9/30/2010 R3: School enrollment interface. Release delayed 1 

month, does not include payment interface. 10/30/ 

2010 

R4: Expansion of previous release functionalities and 

Veteran Self-Service capability.12/31/2010 

R4: BDN payment interface and other data feeds. 12/ 

31/2010; begin incorporating Veteran self-service 

components. Spring 2011 

Causes of LTS delays 

• Delay in full interim system deployment 

• Job Aids to augment limited functionality 

• Added Functionality to meet urgent needs 

• BAH housing retroactive payments and adjustments 

• Automated letter generation 

• Fry scholarship 

• Data conversion complexity 

• Improved understanding of payment interface complexity 

• BDN interface needed to address FAS unavailability 

What Congress Can Do 

• Long Term Solution (LTS) 

• Legislative action has the potential to negatively impact full deployment 

of the LTS 

• Post-9/11 GI Bill 

• VA believes a generally accepted timeline of 24–36 months to incorporate 

significant system changes should be considered. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
76 

Outreach 

• VA is conducting a nationwide media campaign to: 

• Increase general awareness of our education programs 

• Provide clear and easily accessible information through the GI Bill Web 

site. 

• Key goals of the FY 2010 fall campaign: 

• Establish a single cohesive message and pathway to the GI Bill Web site 

• Revamp the GI Bill website for ease of use and navigation 

• Reach advertising visibility targets of 20 percent for national general 

awareness and 80 percent for our direct customers 

• Enhance existing social media platforms (i.e. Post-9/11 GI Bill Facebook 

page) to include campaign material 

Outreach Activities 

NASCAR Sponsorship 

Saturday, Sept 11, 2010 

7:30 PM; ABC Sports & AFN 

Richmond, VA 

NASCAR 

Demographics 

• One out of three military service Members are NASCAR fans 

• Nineteen percent of NASCAR fans have served, or are currently serving in 

the military. 

Event 

• Car Sponsorship for AirGuard 400. 

• Richmond International Raceway weekend sponsorship. 

Value 

• Viewership of 6.6 million on ABC 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here 61757.003 Insert offset folio 4 here 61757.004
77 

• Additional viewership of 1 million on the Armed Forces Network 

• An average of 4 million radio listeners 

• Kickoff for ‘‘My Story’’ clips 

‘‘My Story’’ Videos 

2 videos completed 

2 additional underway 

Rollout at AirGuard 400 

PSA usage 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here 61757.005 Insert offset folio 6 here 61757.006
78 

Outreach Activities 

Mike Rowe on Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits 

http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2009/11/post-911-gi-bill/ 

f 

Statement of John L. Wilson, Assistant 

National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans 

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the 1.2 million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), 

I am honored to present this statement for the record on the Post-9/11 GI Bill, in 

accordance with our congressional charter and DAV’s mission to advance the interests, and work for the betterment, of all wounded, injured, and disabled American 

veterans. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill, which went into effect August 1, 2009, provides educational 

benefits for servicemembers who have served on active duty for 90 or more days on 

or after September 11, 2001. The benefits depend on the number of days served on 

active duty. It also creates a benefit package that gives current and previously activated National Guard and Reserve members the same benefits as active duty 

servicemembers. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefit includes: 100 percent of in-state tuition 

and fees of public colleges and universities; a monthly housing allowance (living stipend) based on an E–5 with dependents for the zip code of the school’s location; up 

to $1,000 a year for books and supplies; a one-time relocation allowance; and the 

option to transfer benefits to family members while still on active duty. 

Approved training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill includes graduate and undergraduate degrees, and vocational/technical training of up to 36 months with benefits 

generally payable for up to15 years following release from active duty. Additionally, 

tutorial assistance, and licensing and certification test reimbursement are approved 

under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

Speaking about the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Secretary Shinseki stated that ‘‘safely investing one’s money requires study of the markets and a reasonable understanding 

of its forces. Here is an investment option that is guaranteed to pay high dividends 

for years to come.’’ 

While the Post-9/11 GI Bill is a comprehensive package of educational benefits, 

DAV submits that the ‘‘high dividends’’ are not likely to be earned by a certain 

group—otherwise eligible service-connected disabled veterans who will opt out of 

VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program due to the low 

monthly stipend. 

To be eligible, VR&E participants must have a discharge that is other than dishonorable, a service-connected disability rating of at least 10 percent from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), or a memorandum rating of 20% or more that 

they received from VBA before separating from active duty, and an employment 

handicap. An employment handicap is an impairment that impacts a veteran’s ability to obtain or retain employment based on their demonstrated abilities, aptitudes 

and interests. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 61757.007
79 

If qualified, participants can receive a comprehensive rehabilitation evaluation to 

determine their abilities, skills, and interests for employment. In addition, they can 

receive vocational counseling and rehabilitation planning for employment services, 

resume development, on-the-job training, apprenticeships, post-secondary training 

at a college, vocational, technical or business school and other important benefits. 

These are critical services, which may make the difference in a veteran not only obtaining but maintaining gainful employment. The living stipend provided to VR&E 

participants may make the difference in being able to provide shelter for his or her 

family. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill living stipend currently averages $1,200 a month, but can 

run as high as $2,700 for full-time students, depending on school zip code. By contrast, the subsistence allowance under VR&E is approximately $548 for full-time 

students with no dependents and approximately $800 for those with two dependents, regardless of zip code. 

Under the current construct, disabled veterans are potentially placed in the difficult position of having to choose between VR&E or the Post-9/11 GI Bill as a result 

of the substantial differences in the monthly living stipend. As a result, we are 

deeply concerned that disabled veterans, in order to provide for their families out 

of economic necessity, will forgo receiving the comprehensive rehabilitative assistance available to them through VR&E and, instead, choose the more generous Post9/11 GI Bill. 

Recent unemployment statistics underscore the reality of our concern and that of 

this Subcommittee. July 2010 employment statistics of the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the overall unemployment rate for veterans generally rose to 8.4 percent, up from May’s 7.8 percent. For veterans from Iraq and 

Afghanistan specifically, the unemployment rate rose to 11.8 percent, an increase 

from the June rate of 11.5 percent and May’s 10.6 percent. While this is an improvement from March of this year when the unemployment rate was 14.7 percent for 

this group, the stagnant economy continues to make both small and large private 

businesses reluctant to hire, thus dimming veterans’ employment prospects. These 

unemployment statistics underscore the reality that the transition from military 

service to veterans’ status for this highly trained and well motivated group, which 

we have addressed in previous testimony as problematic and in need of additional 

legislative action, makes the additional services available to them through VR&E 

programs even more valuable. 

Given this set of circumstances, what choice should a veteran make? One can understand the logic of economic necessity driving veterans in choosing a benefit with 

a much higher stipend versus one with a lower stipend but more comprehensive 

services. 

There is a solution already in Congress that, if enacted, would resolve this dilemma. H.R. 5933, Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 

2010, provides a legislative remedy. While there are several other important provisions of this bill, our focus rests on Section 8, which would amend Section 3108(b) 

title 38, United States Code, making veterans entitled to Chapter 31 subsistence allowance and entitled to Chapter 33 able to elect the E–5 monthly housing allowance 

at the average national amount while participating in VR&E programs. 

S. 514, the Veterans Rehabilitation and Training Improvements Act of 2009, introduced March 3, 2009, also addresses the subsistence allowance. The relevant section of this bill for our purposes, Section 2(b), modifies the amount of the subsistence to the basic allowance for housing for E–5s with or without dependents, as applicable, while participating in VR&E programs. 

Our position on this issue as reflected in this testimony is found in the attached 

DAV Resolution No. 099, passed at our most recent National Convention, held July 

31–August 3, 2010, in Atlanta, Georgia. DAV believes that the anticipated ‘‘high 

dividends’’ of which Secretary Shinseki spoke will not be earned by otherwise eligible service-connected disabled veterans who will opt out of VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program due to the low monthly stipend. 

Subsistence allowances must be comparable, regardless of program, to ensure 

maximum participation and maximum benefit, whether it is assisting veterans in 

finding employment, participation in vocational rehabilitation, or other such services. The Administration and Congress must never force service-connected disabled 

veterans with employment handicaps to utilize less financially supportive programs 

than those available to their non-disabled counterparts, or even more tragically, opt 

out of vocational rehabilitation for the more financially beneficial Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

Truly, our service-connected disabled veterans deserve better. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
80 

Madame Chair, to you and the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to 

present the views of DAV. 

RESOLUTION NO. 099 

SUPPORT FOR LIMITED DUAL ENTITLEMENT TO VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EMPLOYMENT CHAPTER 31, AND THE POST–9/11 

EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UNDER CHAPTER 33 IN ORDER 

TO ENSURE THAT DISABLED VETERANS ARE NOT FORCED TO 

CHOOSE THE LESSER OF TWO BENEFITS 

WHEREAS, our nation established veterans’ programs to repay or reward veterans for their extraordinary service and sacrifices on behalf of their fellow citizens, 

especially those veterans disabled as a result of military service; and 

WHEREAS, these programs include the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program for service-connected disabled veterans with employment 

handicaps as well as the post-9/11 Post-9/11 GI Bill under title 38, United States 

Code, chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill); and 

WHEREAS, the Post-9/11 GI Bill currently provides a more financially lucrative 

subsistence allowance than does the current VR&E Chapter 31 program; and 

WHEREAS, such a disparity will ultimately force service-connected disabled veterans with employment handicaps to either utilize a program less financially supportive to them and their families than their non-disabled counterparts, or opt out 

of vocational rehabilitation for the more financially beneficial post 9/11 Post-9/11 GI 

Bill ; and 

WHEREAS, our Nation’s first duty to veterans is the rehabilitation and welfare 

of its service-connected disabled; NOW 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Disabled American Veterans in National Convention assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, July 31–August 3, 2010, supports 

limited dual entitlement to assistance under the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program under Chapter 31 and the post-9/11 educational assistance program under chapter 33. 

f 

Statement of Judith Flink, Executive 

Director, University Student Financial Services, 

University of Illinois at Chicago, IL 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Judith Flink. I serve 

as Executive Director of University Student Financial Services for the three campuses of the University of Illinois. I have worked in the University’s business office 

and been actively involved in higher education for over 30 years. On behalf of myself, colleagues in the AAU Bursar organization, colleagues from other educational 

institutions around the country, and most importantly, on behalf of the veterans attending or seeking to attend our institutions, I thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

In 2008, Congress passed landmark legislation recognizing the contributions and 

needs of millions of Americans who served their country in our armed forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. This legislation, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, makes possible educational dreams that not only express a special thanks to our veterans, but 

also contribute directly to the economic recovery and future of America. 

America’s postsecondary institutions are proud to have supported the enactment 

of this bill and welcome the opportunity to serve veterans in our classrooms. Today, 

universities across the country enroll thousands of veterans who receive support 

through federal GI benefits. Part of my hope in being here is to promote changes 

to the program that will increase that number. 

Unfortunately, as you are aware, implementation of the vitally important education benefits authorized by the bill has not been smooth. Delays in getting the 

program up and running, followed by numerous subsequent flaws in the interface 

between the VA and educational institutions, have created hardship for veterans 

and institutions. My colleagues and I recognize the enormity of implementing this 

program and creating the systems to manage it. We sincerely applaud the VA for 

its excellent work in getting the program up and running under difficult circumstances. Our desire is to strengthen our partnership with the VA in an effort 

to help the program run better. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
81 

With that in mind, I focus my testimony on flaws in the system that if corrected 

will more effectively fulfill the promise of this program. Included with my remarks 

is a list of concerns compiled by the University of Illinois and 16 peer institutions. 

While the list is not exhaustive, it identifies major concerns that render access to 

educational benefits under this program difficult for veterans and expensive for the 

federal government. Some of these concerns result from legislative provisions, and 

many are the result of VA policy and procedures. 

The majority of our remaining concerns are administrative in nature. VA policies 

and procedures often fail to accommodate the education community’s existing systems and procedures, thereby creating needless delay and hardship for veterans. I 

will not belabor the Committee with all the concerns on our attached list. Allow me 

to highlight just three of them. 

Perhaps our greatest concern as university business officers is the VA’s refund 

policy which requires institutions to refund tuition overpayments to students who 

must then refund them back to the VA. This policy mirrors that of the original GI 

Bill wherein all benefits (including tuition) were paid directly to the students who 

were then responsible for paying their tuition bills to the school and for refunding 

any overpayments back to the VA. But under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, tuition benefits 

are paid to the school not the student. Therefore, the requirement to refund overpayments to students instead of directly to the VA is not only inefficient, it also puts 

students at risk of losing future benefit eligibility under the program if they fail to 

understand or fulfill their responsibility to return those funds to the VA. This risk 

is high. In all other financial aid programs, overpayments are refunded directly to 

the aid source bypassing the student. Thus, students have come to expect that when 

they receive a refund from the school it is theirs to use for books and living expenses. By the time they receive notification from the VA of the amount they must 

repay, the money may have been spent. The VA will then suspend future benefit 

eligibility until payment is received which would delay or prevent the student from 

continuing their education. 

A second major concern is the VA’s remittance of payment for students for whom 

the institution has certified a different amount, or for whom the institution has not 

even completed a Certificate of Eligibility. No explanation is provided with these 

payments. Therefore, the institution must contact the VA for an explanation of the 

discrepancy before releasing payment to the student. When the institution calls, the 

VA’s phone lines have long delays with hold times up to 40 minutes. Sometimes 

calls are dropped altogether due to the high volume and the institution must dial 

again. For months, the VA’s phone lines were closed on Thursdays and Fridays. 

These delays and their resultant hardship to the Veteran could be eliminated if the 

VA included an adequate explanation to the school with each payment. 

Our third concern is a lack of universal published guidance. The VA will provide 

guidance through Policy Advisories but often as a response to a specific question 

posed by an institution. The Advisories may not be disseminated to all participating 

schools creating a lack of consistent, uniform policy among institutions. This lack 

of guidance results in confusion and conflicting administration between institutions 

and creates frustration on the part of veterans. The creation of a single source of 

readily accessible Post-9/11 GI Bill administrative manual would eliminate the majority of this frustration and burden. 

While I’ve only mentioned three of our concerns, the attached list is more comprehensive. We are confident, however, that many of them can be successfully resolved through open dialogue between schools and the VA. Our recent attempts to 

initiate this dialogue met with disappointing results. We received a written response 

from the VA, for which we are grateful, but were not given the opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail or open a meaningful dialogue. 

My peers and I respectfully ask your assistance to open this dialogue. We believe 

regularly scheduled meetings between the VA and a working group from the education community will enable both parties to collaborate on proposed program 

changes and regulations prior to implementation. We would like to be considered 

as both a resource and partner for the VA and Congress in our mutual endeavor 

to improve delivery of Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition benefits to our veterans. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you. I hope my testimony can 

be a spring board for productive dialogue between all parties who share your commitment to strengthening and improving services to our veteran community. I 

would be pleased to respond to any questions Members of the Committee might 

have. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
82 

ATTACHMENTS STUDENT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF REFUND PROCESS 

AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES WITH THE POST–9/11 GI BILL 

School Example 

1. Western Illinois University Veteran withdrew before class after Post-9/11 benefits had been 

paid; WIU refunded benefits to VA via check in Dec 2009; VA 

cashed the check in Feb 2010 but didn’t process it to the veteran’s account until Aug 2010. 

2. University of Illinois Veteran received ROTC scholarship after Post-9/11 benefits had 

been paid; UI refunded benefits to VA via ACH in early 

March 2010 according to VA’s ACH return policy; VA still has 

not processed the refund and was still requesting payment 

from the veteran in late Aug 2010. 

3.University of Illinois Per veteran’s request, UI refunded Post-9/11 benefits to VA via 

ACH in early March 2010 according to VA’s ACH return policy; VA did not process the refund until late July 2010; meanwhile VA reported veteran as delinquent to the credit bureaus, ruining his credit and causing Discover to cancel his 

credit card. 

4. University of Illinois UI received $8,305.60 Post-9/11 benefit payment from VA on 

January 19, 2010 then received another payment in the 

amount of $9,343.80 from VA on May 13, 2010 for the same 

veteran. 

5. Illinois State University ISU received payment from VA for a veteran’s books and supplies stipend (which should have been remitted directly to the 

veteran). 

6. Illinois State University ISU certified a veteran’s Post-9/11 benefit eligibility at 70% but 

received payment from VA in March 2010 at 60%; ISU questioned VA’s eligibility calculation in March 2010 and was told 

by VA that 60% was correct; at veteran’s request, ISU questioned VA again in August 2010 and was told student eligibility is 70%. 

7. George Washington University GWU received Yellow Ribbon benefit payment from VA on behalf of a veteran for whom VA had calculated 100% eligibility; 

VA later discovered they had incorrectly accounted for the 

veteran’s ROTC years, and recalculated Yellow Ribbon eligibility at 80%. 

8. George Washington University GWU received Yellow Ribbon benefit payment from VA on behalf of a veteran for whom VA had calculated 100% eligibility; 

VA paid half the benefit by check, half by wire; VA later discovered veteran was only eligible for 90% Yellow Ribbon benefits. 

9. George Washington University GWU received a $7,000 overpayment of Post-9/11 benefits for a 

veteran on March 9, 2010; GWU called VA to ask what to do 

with the funds and was instructed to wait for VA to call back 

later; after hearing nothing from VA for 4 months, GWU credited the overpayment to the veteran’s account at GWU on 

July 13; a week later VA called and requested GWU to refund 

$7,954.92 to VA. 

10. George Washington University A GWU veteran was active duty at start of Fall 2009 but scheduled to go off active duty mid semester; veteran also wanted 

to participate in Yellow Ribbon; GWU contacted VA for instructions and was told to certify Yellow Ribbon eligibility 

after veteran went off active duty; VA paid veteran’s full tuition plus YR plus housing stipend; VA then created a debt for 

the housing stipend. 

LIST OF CONCERNS REGARDING ADMINISTRATION 

OF THE POST-9/11 GI BILL 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill was signed into law August 1, 2009. Certification and processing of VA Chapter 33 program benefits began immediately thereafter. The volume of applicants overwhelmed VA resources and the program got off to a rough 

start. Improvements have been made in VA’s process, but the program continues to 

present significant challenges to the education community. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
83 

Following is a list of VA Chapter 33 issues and suggestions submitted by administrators from educational institutions (hereinafter collectively referred to as Institution) around the country. The issues needlessly delay delivery of benefit payments 

to veterans and unduly burden Institutions. The suggestions offer potential solutions. 

Issues: 

• VA refund policy is highly labor-intensive because: 

• VA under- and over-payments with no attached explanation result in long 

processing delays as Institution attempts to contact VA for details. • VA policy is inconsistent—some overpayments must be refunded to VA, 

others to the student; some refunds must be electronic, some by paper 

check. • VA policy of refunding to the student is contrary to all other forms of student financial assistance that require Institutions to refund to the aid 

source. • The policy of refunding to the student results in inaccurate IRS Form 

1098–T reporting. For example, if VA remits $10,000 Chapter 33 tuition 

benefits to Institution then the student drops classes resulting in a 

$4,000 tuition reduction and Institution refunds that $4,000 to the student instead of VA, the Institution will report $10,000 in Box 5 of the student’s Form 1098–T, not the $6,000. 

• Inadequate explanation of VA payments: 

• VA payments do not match the amount certified by Institution on the 

Certificate of Eligibility. • VA remits payments for students for whom Institution has not completed 

a Certificate of Eligibility. • VA remits duplicate payments for some students. • VA pays out-of-state tuition after Institution has charged and certified instate tuition. • VA payments lack adequate identifying information—enrollment term, 

number of credit hours, percentage of eligibility, etc. For example, if Institution certifies $5,000 and VA remits only $3,200, Institution is given 

no explanation why. • VA policy of remitting individual instead of collective payments is highly 

labor-intensive. 

• Delayed VA payments result in additional labor-intensive Institution activities: 

• Institution processes emergency loans for delayed housing payments; • Institution places provisional credits on student accounts in order to prevent late payment charges or cancellation of enrollment for non-payment; • Institution must conduct a manual reconciliation upon receipt of VA payments which are almost invariably different than the anticipated provisional credits; • Institution holds payments received for a previous enrollment term until 

VA confirms the student’s eligibility for the current or subsequent enrollment term in order to verify accuracy; • Institution must process multiple Certificates of Eligibility for students 

whose active duty and/or enrollment status changed prior to receipt of VA 

payment; • Lump sum payments for multiple terms are difficult to differentiate by 

term. 

• VA refund policy is highly labor-intensive because: 

• VA under- and over-payments with no attached explanation result in long 

processing delays as Institution attempts to contact VA for details. • VA policy is inconsistent—some overpayments must be refunded to VA, 

others to the student; some refunds must be electronic, some by paper 

check. • VA policy of refunding to the student is contrary to all other forms of student financial assistance that require Institution to refund to the aid 

source; • The policy of refunding to the student results in inaccurate IRS Form 

1098–T reporting. For example, if VA remits $10,000 Chapter 33 tuition 

benefits to Institution then the student drops classes resulting in a 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
84 

$4,000 tuition reduction and Institution refunds that $4,000 to the student instead of VA, the Institution will report $10,000 in Box 5 of the student’s Form 1098–T, not the $6,000. 

• VA return policy creates needless delays and administrative burden because: 

• Institution must return full payment if any variation in assessment has 

occurred subsequent to certification, even if that variation is a minor reduction in fees. • Institution must submit an amended certification after returning payment which removes it from VA’s automated process by requiring VA 

Claims Adjustor review. • VA Claims Adjustor must then submit a new payment request to the U.S. 

Treasury Department who waits to process the payment in batch. 

• VA has published no clear guidance regarding which benefits will be delayed 

in the event of an unreimbursed overpayment–tuition/fee payment to Institution, or living/book payment to student? • VA has published no clear deadlines for retroactive applications (benefits for 

prior enrollment terms). • VA has published no clear guidance for Chapter 33 benefit eligibility for students who receive other forms of tuition assistance, e.g. Active Military tuition sponsorship, federal or state tuition assistance, Institutional tuition waivers, private tuition specific scholarships or sponsorships, etc. 

• VA has published no clear guidance for Chapter 33 benefit eligibility for students who are discharged from active duty during the enrollment period. 

• VA has not required or adequately accounted for DD214 (active duty discharge) data when determining Chapter 33 benefit eligibility. 

• VA has published no clear guidance on Chapter 33 benefit eligibility for 

waivable student health insurance. 

• Some VA payments appear on multiple cycle rosters giving the false impression that duplicate payments have been received. 

• Some VA deposits contain enrollment dates that do not match Institution’s. 

• Veterans and Institution have no mechanism for determining the status of a 

veteran’s application (22–1999) and whether the veteran will qualify for 

Chapter 33 benefits, so veterans who need the benefits in order to attend 

class cannot register. 

• VA restrictions on distance education unfairly deny housing stipends to these 

students. 

• VA does not notify Institution when student changes benefit Chapter. 

• Yellow ribbon payments have been particularly difficult; although they are included on the original certification, the yellow ribbon eligibility is segregated 

and payments for yellow ribbon claims have not been forthcoming. 

• VA customer service is inadequate: 

• Institution cannot contact VA’s Buffalo regional office directly even 

though they originate the payments; Institution has to use either the online inquiry system or call the national 888 number. 

• VA’s national 888 number results in long delays from hold times as long 

as 40 minutes or dropped calls; now the 888 number is closed Thursdays 

and Fridays to enable VA to ‘‘catch up’’. 

• VA representatives often give conflicting information and when pressed 

either refer Institution to VA’s regional office in Buffalo (which Institution cannot contact), or instruct Institution not to question VA’s payments 

(even though Institution has found many errors and is supposed to be 

VA’s ‘‘partner’’). 

• VA’s online system sometimes reports inquiries ‘‘closed’’ without providing an adequate explanation of the resolution. 

• VA Education Liaison Representatives (ELRs) are frequently unavailable 

due to ‘‘special assignment’’. 

Suggestions: 

• Open a dialogue between VA and Institutions that enables both parties to understand prior to implementation the system and process implications of VAproposed new changes and regulations. 

• Establish a partnership between VA and U.S. Department of Education (ED) 

to share resources and expedite delivery of VA benefits. 

• Revisit the education law passed by Congress last year that removes VA benefits from consideration when determining student eligibility for Title IV 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
85 

funds. Federal need based financial assistance must by definition be determined on need, and need is mitigated by federal assistance from another federal agency. • Create an on-line portal similar to the WAVE portal for Chapter 30 benefits 

that would enable veterans and Institution to determine the veteran’s Chapter 33 application status and eligibility for benefits. 

• Veterans need an effective source of accurate information about their individual benefit eligibility before they apply for and accept admission to 

an Institution in order to know whether they can afford to attend. • Institutions who are asked to carry the financial risk for veterans by 

holding them harmless while awaiting payment from VA need an effective source of accurate information about their application and benefit 

status. 

• Simply streamline, standardize, and improve communication regarding VA 

overpayment policy: 

• Allow Institution to refund/return only the overpayment amount rather 

than the full payment followed by an amended certification. • Allow Institution to batch overpayment refunds/returns rather than remitting them individually. • Standardize VA overpayment policy to mirror ED and other financial aid 

policies that return overpayments to the aid source not student. • Improve communication regarding status of student refund/return. 

• Provide adequate and accurate explanations to Institution for VA payments 

that differ from Institution certified amounts; then remit batch/collective payments to Institution instead of multiple individual payments. • Allow individuals other than the single certifying official at Institution to initiate/maintain contact with VA; for example, individuals who research billing 

issues should be able to speak directly with VA payment coordinators to resolve discrepancies. • VA responsiveness to researching mismatched payments has improved, now 

originating issues need to be addressed. • Replace the per-credit hour cap with a single dollar amount cap for each 

state. This would eliminate the need to calculate benefits individually for 

each student based on enrolled credit hours. • Revisit VA restrictions on distance education to allow veterans Chapter 33 

housing stipends while enrolled solely through distance education courses. • Clarify VA policy on overseas study and expand Chapter 33 benefit eligibility 

to include courses taken abroad that count toward the student’s degree. • Allow veterans to revert to a more advantageous program if they discover 

Chapter 33 is not in their best interest. 

• The irrevocable nature of Chapter 33 benefit election coupled with the 

lack of clear situation-specific information to effectively guide their decision has created hardships for many veterans. 

• Remove the Chapter 30 to Chapter 33 conversion penalty which limits 

combined use of the two programs to 36 months unless Chapter 30 is exhausted. 

• Simplify Chapter 33 eligibility rules and allow all active service to count; 

eliminate the requirement to verify the purpose and authorizing U.S. Code for 

each active duty period. 

• Expand Chapter 33 timelines to allow Institution to complete Certificates of 

Eligibility far enough in advance to enable VA to process claims by the start 

of the term and continue uninterrupted between terms. 

• The Higher Education Opportunity Act’s Readmission Requirements for 

Servicemembers states that returning servicemembers may not be charged 

tuition and fees in excess of the rate charged during the term in which they 

left school for military service unless they have veteran or military education 

benefits. Is it reasonable to base charges on benefit eligibility? 

• Improve VA delivery of policy notifications to Institution Certifying Officials 

(COs). Recent VA policy updates submitted to COs via mass e-mail with a 

link to VA’s Web Automated Reference Material System (WARMS) were 

missed because many COs could not access the link to WARMS. All time sensitive information should be included in the actual email text. 

• Forward to Institution a monthly report (or copy of Certificate of Eligibility) 

listing each applicant and percentage of Chapter 33 benefit eligibility for that 

Institution. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
86 

• Forward to Institution a monthly (or quarterly) report listing students who 

owe an overpayment to VA, and when the overpayment has been paid. 

• Remove the detailed examination of each course’s applicability to a degree 

program, attendance, retakes, and need for remediation. Why does the VA 

track this level of detail when U.S. Department of Education does not? 

• Remove the tracking of each course by start and stop date; allow Institutions 

with regular terms of enrollment to use the same criteria as Title IV for full 

time enrollment. 

• Remove the requirement for State Approving Agencies to approve each program of education at an accredited Institution. If the Institution meets accreditation standards, shouldn’t that be sufficient for education benefits? 

Contributing Institutions: 

• Margaret Baechtold and Susan Cote, Indiana University 

• Sandie Rosko, University of Washington 

• Laurie Schlenke, Michigan State University 

• Jean Thomson, University of Colorado, Boulder 

• Bob Lech, University of Pittsburgh 

• Beth Barrett, Harvard University 

• Roseann Sieminski, Pennsylvania State University 

• James Middlemas, University of Michigan 

• Marty Miller, University of Iowa 

• Christina Westendorf, Illinois State University 

• Cathie Easter, University of Wisconsin 

• Bradley Stene, Northwestern University 

• Marsha Lovell, UCLA 

• Cathy Foland, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 

• Paul Toler, University of Missouri Columbia 

• John Higgins, Purdue University 

• Judith Flink, University of Illinois 

f 

Statement of William D. Stephens, President, 

National Association of State Approving Agencies 

The National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA) is providing general support for the proposed changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. These bills will make 

improvements to an already outstanding piece of legislation. 

NASAA has long held the view that the GI Bill(s) should be the premier educational assistance program in the Nation, bar none. No other Federal program 

should come close to providing the same level of educational opportunities and financial support as the GI Bill. This philosophy is based upon the deep belief that 

those who have and those who continue to defend the freedoms that we all so thoroughly enjoy deserve no less. 

With the above in mind, we are pleased to add our support for these bills and 

encourage Congress to enact them before the close of the 111th Congress. We are 

especially pleased with the provisions which expand opportunities for veterans to 

use their earned Chapter 33 benefits for pursuit of educational programs at institutions other than institutions of higher learning (non-college degree institutions, apprenticeships and other on-the-job training establishments, flight training programs 

and correspondence courses). We also are pleased with provisions that expand eligibility for receipt of a housing allowance to include Chapter 31 veterans, include 

service under Chapter 32 for establishing eligibility, expand reimbursement for multiple tests leading to licensure and certification, and increase the reporting fee paid. 

Finally, we would like to offer a general comment on one of the provisions of the 

bills and offer a recommendation for consideration. It is our understanding that the 

original language and intent of Senate Bill 22 (introduced by Senator Webb in the 

110th Congress) was to mirror as closely as possible the WWII GI Bill. The changes 

being considered for public institutions of higher learning seem to reflect this philosophy whereas for private institutions there is a ceiling on the amount of assistance 

that can be provided. We realize there are financial constraints, but again encourage 

providing the highest amount possible. 

Thank you for your hard work to improve the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We applaud your 

efforts and are very pleased to provide our support. As stated, these bills have many 

great features which will provide the kind of opportunities and support needed by 

our Nation’s servicemembers and veterans to help them pursue their career goals. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
87 

If you have any questions please contact Skip Gebhart (304–558–0263, 

gebhart@hepc.wvnet.edu), Jim Bombard (212–564–8414 or e-mail 

jbombard@)veterans.state.ny.us) or me. 

f 

Statement of Student Veterans of America 

Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of this Subcommittee, 

It is once again a privilege to be able to provide testimony on behalf of our Nation’s student veterans regarding their GI Bill benefits. Thank you for providing us 

with this important opportunity. 

As you know, this past year was the first with student veterans using the Post9/11 GI Bill. It was one of monumental challenges and victories. We saw hundreds 

of thousands of new veterans going to college with billions of dollars worth of Federal support, we saw some colleges and universities have their veteran population 

double or more in a single year, and we saw the VA working with our organization, 

schools, and individual student veterans to overcome difficulties that could have 

been devastating. 

This time last year, we waited anxiously to see if the benefits that were promised 

to our veterans would arrive in a timely fashion. As this committee is all too aware, 

it was some time before most veterans received their housing allowances, a brand 

new benefit never before paid on such a large scale. This benefit represented a fundamental change in the way veterans interacted with the VA. Until this point, GI 

Bill benefits for the vast majority of veterans barely covered books and some tuition. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill promised the opportunity for veterans to focus on school fulltime, without needing support from family or a job. Many took this opportunity literally, and enrolled in a full load of coursework and left their jobs. 

When the housing allowances were late, veterans were put in the awful position 

of having to choose between paying their rent or staying school. This kind of pressure should never be put on a veteran again, and we are glad to see that it has 

been overcome. The Emergency Advanced Payment program that the VA instituted 

went a long way to alleviate some of these concerns, though that was not without 

its own issues, as we are all aware of. 

The schools struggled as well, not knowing when their tuition payments would be 

arriving from the VA, and while many did the right thing and held the veterans 

harmless for the amount promised under the benefit, some dis-enrolled student veterans for lack of payment. We were proud to assist Members of Congress in bringing 

these incidents to the attention of university leadership so that most veterans could 

be brought back into the classroom, but the damage was still done. 

Beyond all of these issues that were identified last year, we learned some fundamental lessons that need to be taken into account for all future decisions made regarding student veterans: 

1. The VA needs to do significantly more outreach to individual student 

veterans and schools. Above all else, we found that there were so many 

differing stories being passed around that it was challenging for veterans to 

know what the truth was. Schools were doing their own thing or putting out 

information in the vacuum that was contrary to what the VA was asking for. 

Despite the VA’s significantly increased social media presence, their primary 

means of communicating with recipients is still paper mail. This is not only 

terribly expensive; it is not an effective means of communicating. Worse, 

school certifying officials do not get copies of these letters, so they do not 

usually know if there is a problem with a veteran’s account that they themselves could fix. An email listserv that vets could sign up for would go a long 

way to rectify this problem and facilitate direct communication between the 

vets and the VA. 

2. There is no formal way for schools or VSOs to advocate on behalf of 

veterans who need help. When there is an issue with a veteran’s account 

and for some reason they are not receiving their payments correctly, there 

is no established way for certifying officials or VSOs to contact a VA benefits 

processor to have them look into it. This can be very challenging for student 

veterans who may not understand what they are supposed to do to rectify 

the issues that we causing the problems. Given how important the housing 

allowances are for the daily life of most student veterans, it is essential that 

we allow schools and VSOs to advocate on their behalf and ensure the problems are rectified quickly and correctly. There needs to be some formal process to bring the VA’s attention to trouble accounts by the people who understand the policies and procedures, not just via 888–GIBILL1. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
88 

3. School certifying officials need significantly more training, guidance, 

and resources from the VA. School certifying officials are the individuals 

who are responsible for ensuring that our student veterans receive their benefits. They are the employees of private universities, or state employees for 

public institutions. They have no formal relationship with the VA, except 

that they are expected to file a veteran’s status with the VA every semester 

so that veterans can receive their tuition and other entitlements. These individuals have seen their workload double and triple in the last year, as a 

Chapter 33 filing process is significantly more time consuming for the certifying officials. Unfortunately, however, their schools have not seen the increased resources to keep up with this demand, and many have actually reduced their certifying staff in light of the budget crisis. 

The relationship between the student veteran, the school, the state approving 

agency, and the VA has not been formally reviewed in some time. There is no standardized chain of command for raising issues, for solving problems, and especially for 

soliciting feedback as to how the process is working. We hope that this committee 

and others will take time to examine these relationships and processes in the near 

future. 

Over the last year, student veterans have provided us with the following messages 

that we would like to share with you: 

1. The benefit is too complicated, and even after all of the paperwork is filled 

out, veterans don’t know what they are receiving. 

2. The Post-9/11 GI Bill does not provide the housing allowance to our tens 

of thousands of distance learners, forcing them to spend much more time 

earning their degree than others. 

3. Tens of thousands of our National Guardsmen have been left out of their 

earned benefits after being called up to serve in their communities for 

emergency response and disasters. 

4. There is no way for veterans to know what the status of their benefit claim 

is, nor how much it will cover until after they start school. 

5. Processing delays are not being taken seriously by the VA, and when veterans call to ask about the status of their claim, they are often given unrealistic or incorrect time frames on when they can expect to hear back. 

6. When processing errors are made, it is very difficult to get them changed 

without third-party intervention. No one on the 888–GIBILL1 phone number seems to know how to correct them. 

7. The VA is very aggressive in recouping debts due to overpayment, even if 

they are not the veteran’s fault. Especially when it comes to tuition overpayment directly to the schools, the veteran should not have their benefits 

garnished for this overpayment without the VA first contacting the school 

and trying to recoup the funding that way. 

8. The VA must quickly and accurately update the BAH rates and the tuition 

rates when they change and say they are going to. It is unacceptable that 

they are just now paying the 2010 BAH rate, and that tuition/fees rates 

were published only recently. These numbers are important for schools and 

veterans to make informed decisions, and they need to be published on time 

and accurately. 

9. When the VA awards a benefit rating that turns out to be higher than a 

veteran is due, they should not be able to go back mid-semester and reduce 

it. The student veteran should be able stay at that rate at least until the 

end of the school year before they have their rate reduced so they can make 

an informed decision about their finances. 

10. The Post-9/11 GI Bill does not provide enough benefits for veterans to complete 5-year engineering degrees or other high-intensity programs. 

We will let the schools and their organizations represent themselves on the issues 

that they have faced, but we have certainly seen the effects of under-resourced veterans offices attempting to provide services to a growing veteran population. This 

is something that must be immediately corrected, and efforts such as Chairman 

Filner’s H.R. 3579 to increase the reporting fees for every veteran at an institution 

would go a long way to address this. 

Looking forward, there are many issues to correct in the Post-9/11 GI Bill, some 

of which we have highlighted here. The complicated state-by-state system must be 

eliminated so that all veterans are worth the same in all states, and know what 

their benefits are worth before they apply to school. The rest of the veteran population must be brought into the fold so that they receive the same benefits at all 

institutions and the eligibility pool is the same as previous era GI Bills. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
89 

To this end, the best way to address these concerns going forward, and to reduce 

the burdensome claims process of the VA, we strongly support Congressman 

Minnick’s H.R. 5933, and we thank you, Madam Chairwoman, as well as your colleagues, for signing on to this Bill. Expanding the benefit pool for all eligible veterans is of extreme importance to our members, and so is being able to use this in 

all types of programs. In addition, this bill closes important loopholes that provide 

significant cost savings for the future of the program. We are looking forward to the 

day when there are only two GI Bills for veterans to choose from: one for disabled 

veterans under Vocational Rehabilitation, and one for those who are not disabled 

with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Implementing this legislation is 

Student Veterans of America looks forward to working with this esteemed committee and its Members to continue to improve education benefits for all veterans. 

It is of the utmost importance that we take this opportunity to perfect this benefit 

before more veterans go underserved and schools continue to struggle. 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
90 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

American Legion 

Washington, DC. 

October 19, 2010 

Honorable Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, Chair 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chair Herseth-Sandlin: 

Thank you for allowing The American Legion to participate in the Subcommittee 

hearing on The Post-9/11 GI Bill on September 16, 2010. I am pleased to respond 

to your specific question concerning that hearing: 

Can you explain a little further the details in your testimony regarding veterans 

and their families reporting losing their future payments as opposed to the $750.00 

deduction? 

The American Legion understood the $750.00 deduction as a way to recoup the 

money veterans received during the emergency payment process while claims were 

being processed. During the recoupment, there was confusion with how much and 

when the payments would be taken out of their future payments. Instead of taking 

the $750.00 out from their future payments the Department of Veterans Affairs 

were deducting the entire amount. The American Legion is not stating this was 

widespread, but we were contacted by veterans and their families with financial 

hardships. This lack of communication inevitably affected their financial situation 

even further due to the lack of communication that was being provided to them from 

the VA. During this emergency payment time frame, the VA was only working the 

call center during limited days and hours. This lack of consistency and availability 

by the VA caused further confusion and delayed their opportunities to make the repayment amount fit into the veterans budget without causing financial distress. 

Thank you once again for all of the courtesies provided by you and your capable 

staff. The American Legion welcomes the opportunity to work with you and your 

colleagues on many issues facing veterans and their families throughout this Congress. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Madden, Assistant Director 

f 

National Economic Commission 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

September 20, 2010 

Ms. Faith DesLauriers 

Legislative Director 

National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators 

Boise State University 

1910 University Drive 

Boise, ID 83725 

Dear Ms. DesLauriers: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

which took place on September 16, 2010. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Monday, November 1, 2010. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
91 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

5491. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

JL/ot 

National Association of Veterans Program Administrators 

Washington, DC. 

October 13, 2010 

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Madam Chairwoman: 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions for the record in reference to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing, which took place on September 16, 2010. 

Question 1: What has prevented VA from being able to credit refunds made by 

the schools to the student’s accounts? 

Answer: We reluctantly respond to this question as it would be best addressed 

by Education Service. However, it is our experience that there is a lack of communication between the Agent Cashiers and the claims processors. We assume that 

this disconnect and delay in processing refunds may be a matter of inadequate staffing and or technology to handle the number of refunds being made by institutions 

nationwide. 

Question 2: What is the difference between class enrollments and term enrollments period and how is it better to count hours in a standard college term? 

Answer: Department of Veterans Affairs 38 CFR 21.4135(s)(5) stipulates that an 

individual who enrolls in several subjects and reduces his or her rate of pursuit by 

completing one or more of them while continuing training in others, will have their 

educational assistance allowance reduced effective the date the subject or subjects 

were completed. Many institutions schedule mini sessions (4–7 weeks) within a 

standard semester (15–18 weeks) and require students to enroll full time, but the 

enrollment period is broken into two or more modules during the semester. This is 

often necessary to complete sequential courses, such as in nursing programs. Many 

students who access their Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) entitlement are placed at a 

financial disadvantage because of this DVA policy. Not only are the veteran students monthly entitlement reduced, but financial aid is computed using all credits 

in which the student is enrolled for that term. 

DISCUSSION: Students pursuing professional programs that require scheduling 

of non-standard terms/modules during a regular semester/quarter are not able to select those terms that would allow full-time enrollment computation of their monthly 

entitlement; or, students who are required to enroll in such terms lose full time enrollment status and thereby full compensation of VA educational entitlement rates 

even though they complete the equivalent of full time enrollment over the course 

of the semester. This is in direct contrast to the computation of the Federal Financial Aid programs that combine all credits earned during a standard semester to determine the students’ enrollment status and pay accordingly. Veteran students are 

disadvantaged in VA educational entitlement computation because of this inequitable VA process. 

To illustrate this inequity, assume that a standard term is January 15–May 15 

and the student is enrolled at the college or university for 12 semester hours of 

credit in this term. Normally this enrollment would equate to full-time status for 

VA MGIB training purposes. However, when a student is enrolled in short duration 

or modular classes within that term the student’s VA monthly compensation is diluted as follows: January 15–March 15 the student is enrolled in 9 semester hours 

of credit. March 16–May 15 the student is enrolled in 3 semester hours of credit. 

For FFA purposes the student is full time. For DVA rate computation the student 

is enrolled 3⁄4 time from January 15–March 15, and then on March 16 is reduced 

or adjusted to 1⁄4 training time for the remainder of the term, even though the stuVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 061757 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\61757.XXX GPO1 PsN: 61757

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
92 

dent will earn 12 semester hours of credit in the standard term. Normally, 12 semester hours is sufficient for full-time status/benefit. 

Question 3: Can you explain what you mean when you state that veterans have 

voiced concern that ‘‘the ability to pursue their educational endeavors are restricted 

to that which is deemed by Congress to be traditional’’ ? 

Answer: Chapter 33 benefits are currently unlimited for enrollment in a public 

institution of higher learning (IHL), but capped for veterans who choose to enroll 

in the private sector. Education and training is limited to traditional programs/degrees and modality offered by IHL’s but excludes OJT/apprenticeships and other 

viable and previously approved vocational training opportunities. Many Veterans 

have already earned degrees and/or are not interested in attending college, but have 

the skills necessary to master a trade. Limiting benefits and training opportunities 

(career options), consequently dilutes the readjustment element of this program. 

And finally, the exclusion of a living stipend for veterans pursuing a program of 

education on a half time basis while they work part-time, and for pursuit of a program of education offered through courses/programs defined as distance learning, 

puts veterans who choose to balance their work, family and school, at a disadvantage. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response to your follow up questions. 

Please let me know if you have further questions. 

Respectfully, 

Faith DesLauriers, NAVPA Legislative Director 

University Director of Veterans’ Affairs 

f 

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

September 20, 2010 

Dr. Alan Merten 

President 

George Mason University 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities 

1307 New York Ave, NW 5th floor 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dear Dr. Merten: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

which took place on September 16, 2010. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Monday, November 1, 2010. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

5491. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

JL/ot 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
93 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities 

Washington, DC. 

November 1, 2010 

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Madame Chairwoman: 

Attached please find the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ 

response to the questions for the record in follow-up to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity’s September 16, 2010 hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this information. Should you have any 

further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

Edward Elmendorf 

Senior Vice President 

Government Relations and Policy Analysis 

Question 1: You mention that delays of up to a year are occurring with regard 

to appeals for claim reevaluations. How many students have had this problem? 

Response: It is difficult to quantify this number for all AASCU institutions; however, concerns regarding delayed claim re-evaluations were commonly expressed by 

members to AASCU during the Post-9/11 GI Bill’s first year of implementation. 

AASCU acknowledges that VA processing continues to improve in general, but that 

individual problems continue to occur. 

Question 2: You state that VA’s guidance to institutions have been basic in nature. What more does VA need to provide to the institutions? 

Response: All higher education business offices seek to efficiently determine why 

payments they receive are excessive or insufficient. VA will not respond to inquiries 

from Student Accounts Office staff, only to certifying officials. This makes it difficult 

to resolve a problem that certifying officials—who do not manage student accounts— 

may know little about. Certifying officials also need clarification on credit certifications that do not conform to standard semesters, contract course certifications, 

and other exceptional cases. VA should allow student accounts personnel to contact 

them directly regarding student accounts and should be able to address complex certification issues for certifying officials. 

Question 3: You state that the VA’s Web site is difficult to navigate. What recommendations do you have? 

Response: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) education benefits Web site 

has recently been significantly updated. This appears to have been in conjunction 

with the VA’s new public relations campaign to ensure veterans are aware of the 

processes required to receive their benefits. However, there are some areas that 

could be added or improved to better serve veterans. 

One area that could be improved is one that keeps the veteran informed of their 

benefit utilization status. A mechanism already in place to do this is the VA’s Web 

Automated Verification of Enrollment (WAVE) system. This system allows the user 

to view the time periods for which their school has certified them, which benefit program they are using, the number of months of entitlement they have remaining, 

their delimiting date, and the amount of the last check or direct deposit. 

Unlike other GI Bill recipients, those receiving the Post-9/11 GI Bill do not have 

to verify their attendance through WAVE. As a result, this population struggles for 

basic information on their benefit usage. The VA’s failure to incorporate the Post9/11 GI Bill into WAVE results in wasted time spent by both the VA and institutions of higher learning in answering these basic questions. 

Given the number of veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill as well as various proposals to fold all GI Bills into one program, it would be best for the VA to allow 

Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries the same access and information to WAVE as those 

enrolled in other veterans education benefit programs. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
94 

1 References Garamone, J. (2010 Oct 12). 2010 Proves Banner Year for Recruiting. Department of Defense Press Release Greene, J., & Winters, M. (2005). Public high school graduation 

and college-readiness rates: 1991–2002. New York: Manhattan Institute. Inskeep, S. & Bowman, 

T. (2008 Apr 17). Army Documents Show Lower Recruiting Standards, National Public Radio, 

Washington, DC Jenkins, D., & Boswell, K. (2002). State policies on community college remedial 

education: Findings from a national survey. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. 

Kaplan, F. (2008 Jan 24). Dumb and Dumber: The U.S. Army lowers recruitment standards 

again. Washington Post, Washington, DC National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] 

(2004). The condition of education 2004, indicator 18: Remediation and degree completion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2004). The 

condition of education 2004, indicator 31: Remedial. 

Question 4: You state that reporting fees should be increased. What do you recommend as an equitable figure? 

Response: Currently VA pays an annual reporting fee of $7.00 per student, based 

on a 30-year-old standard instituted when schools were only responsible for certifying enrollment in two programs. Today schools are responsible for the accurate 

certification and proper administration of 11 veterans’ education benefit programs. 

This funding inadequacy requires many veterans affairs offices on campus to partner with other offices—such as financial aid, counseling, admissions and student accounts—that play roles in the certification process. However, these partnering offices generally serve an entire campus or portion of a campus, rather than being 

dedicated solely to veteran students, and shoulder benefit certification as a collateral duty on top of their existing workload. At George Mason University, the Registrar and Student Accounts offices have had to create additional positions to meet 

Post-9/11 GI Bill processing needs. The additional expense of these positions is 

∼$110K, including fringe benefits. 

An equitable figure depends upon Congress’ expectations of higher education institutions. If Congress expects colleges and universities to be responsible for the certification of enrollment, in addition to continued counseling and paperwork processing responsibilities, then a significant increase in the reporting fee will be necessary. 

Question 5: In your testimony you write that some veterans need remedial education while others were not ready for college. What percentage of veterans do you 

estimate need remedial education or are not ready for college? 

Response: Given the lack of general data on veterans, as well as more specific 

data on Post-9/11 benefit usage, it is difficult to fully quantify this number. However, as outlined below, we would anticipate veterans mirroring the general population and caution that a significant number of veterans may need remedial education in one or more subject areas before starting college. We note that there are 

multiple DoD programs designed to address the need for remedial education among 

active-duty servicemembers (e.g., the Army’s Functional Academic Skills Training 

[FAST] or the Marine Corps’ Military Academic Skills Program [MASP]) that also 

prepare individuals for an easier transition into postsecondary education. 

Nationally, less than half of those who receive a high school diploma are academically prepared for postsecondary education (Greene & Winters, 2005). In fact, according to the Department of Education, approximately 42 percent of community 

college freshmen and 20 percent of freshmen in four-year institutions are enrolled 

in remedial courses (NCES 2004b). Analyses of student preparation for college-level 

work show weakness in multiple subject areas; of college freshmen taking remedial 

courses, 35 percent were enrolled in math, 23 percent in writing, and 20 percent 

in reading (NCES, 2004b). Community colleges bear the greatest share of the remediation burden and trends indicate that their responsibilities in this arena are likely 

to grow. For instance, eleven states have passed laws preventing or discouraging 

public four-year institutions from offering remedial courses to their students, thus 

concentrating unprepared students in community colleges (Jenkins & Boswell, 

2002). 

Normally that would mean about 67,000 of the 200,000 (Garamone, 2010) men 

and women selected each year for active duty enlisted positions in the Army, Navy, 

Air Force, and Marines would require some form of remediation. It is important to 

note that the Department of Defense has changed military enlistment standards related to academics over the last six years to better meet enlistment goals (Inskeep 

& Boswell, 2008, Kaplan 2008). Further, the DoD programs designed to address the 

need for remedial education may not necessarily reach the entire target population. 

These factors will have an influence on the number of veterans needing remediation.1


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
95 

Question 6: What kinds of accommodations have your schools made because of 

post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury? 

Response: AASCU schools have made varying accommodations for students (not 

only veteran students) with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic 

Brain Injury (TBI). As noted in the first study of support services for veterans on 

campus (From Soldier to Student: Easing the Transition of Servicemembers on Campus) in which AASCU participated, institutions may incorporate veterans with disabilities into pre-existing disability services programs for all students as well as coordinate referrals to off-campus treatment centers for students with injuries beyond 

the capacities of a campus treatment center. 

In George Mason University’s experience, the diagnoses of TBI and PTSD have 

become blurred and their treatment approaches have been merged. The reasons include the many cross-symptoms and the inability to determine whether those symptoms are directly connected to a TBI or are the lingering results of having suffered 

one. Mason does not have the capability to perform intensive neuropsychological 

evaluations to make highly accurate measures of deficit, although learning deficits 

can be measured. Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) is currently treating 7–8 veterans for PTSD using Prolonged Exposure Therapy (PET). This approach 

is one of a small handful of approaches that have demonstrated effectiveness. 

The Office of Disability Services (ODS) has ∼5 students currently registered with 

PTSD. The diagnosis is often accompanied by other physical and psychological conditions; ODS responds to any questions that faculty may have on PTSD and TBI 

as well as other disability-related issues. For testing, ODS offers a stimulus-free individual room. Medication to manage hypervigilance (a common effect of PTSD) can 

involve powerful anti-anxiety drugs that can cause a secondary disabling effect on 

awareness, memory and general ability to learn. In these cases we would offer veterans extra time in which to complete exams and possibly extra time to complete 

assignments. In addition, accommodations for an individual with PTSD can include 

the use of an emotional support animal. 

*Coursetaking. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

As a general rule both offices refer veteran students to the Office of Military Services for support group or for transition information. In many instances George 

Mason University winds up providing services that are also available at the VA, 

sometimes because the VA is overwhelmed and sometimes because veterans and 

families prefer campus-based resources. However, George Mason University does 

not have the array of programming and resources that the VA has to offer. It would 

be helpful for Congress to examine ways in which it can allocate resources to college-bound veterans with special needs. 

Question 7: How are VA statistics related to Post-9/11 GI Bill usage and claims 

processing incomplete and confusing? 

Response: The VA’s Monday Morning Workload Report (MMWR), a commonly 

used source for data, provides statistics on Chapter 33 ‘‘work items’’ (aka ‘‘claims’’) 

in process. However, a single veteran student’s file can generate multiple work 

items depending on the complexity of his or her case, so the ‘‘work items’’ number 

does not correspond to the number of students whose files are in process. This is 

incomplete and thus creates confusion. 

Given that VA only periodically releases other Post-9/11 GI Bill statistics on number of students served and dollar amounts paid—generally when giving a presentation or testifying before Congress—there is no easy way for institutions and higher education analysts to compare VA statistics to each other and get an accurate 

picture throughout the academic year. Releasing more complete statistics combined 

with better explanations of VA terminology would enable VA to present a clearer 

picture of the complexity of its Post-9/11 workload to the public, including veteran 

students waiting for payment. 

In addition, the recent changes to the VA GI Bill Web site appear to have disabled 

what was once a routine link from the MMWR to processing statistics for the Post9/11 GI Bill (http://www.gibill.va.gov/spring2010.htm). 

Question 8: How does VA being the ‘‘last payer’’ affect other types of financial 

aid a student gets? 

Response: It is AASCU’s understanding that the notion of VA as ‘‘last payer’’ 

evolved in order to eliminate the confusion that exists in the current system. However, this proposal would actually add more complexity and confusion to the program. If the goal is to simplify and reduce confusion in the Post-9/11 GI Bill program for the veteran, then the notion of ‘‘last payer’’ should not be included. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
96 

Veterans need to know from the outset what amount they are eligible to receive 

from the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Simply put, if the VA becomes the ‘‘last payer,’’ a financial aid officer or other official will not be able to inform the veteran of their benefit 

amount until the veteran files a Federal Application for Student Financial Assistance (FAFSA), the FAFSA is processed, and the financial aid office performs all necessary verification of data to determine what other federal, state, and institutional 

benefits to which the veteran may be entitled. This will all have to take place before 

a college certifying official or financial aid officer can tell a veteran student the 

amount that will be provided from the GI Bill. The FAFSA process takes anywhere 

from 4–6 weeks during peak processing season but can be longer depending on individual circumstances. This will create hardships for veteran students—since many 

do not currently file FAFSAs—and add significantly to the certification workload for 

colleges and universities. 

Furthermore, applying all of this aid first in effect caps all of the benefits a veteran could receive at the amount due for tuition and fees. Postsecondary education 

costs go beyond tuition and fees (e.g., transportation expenses to/from campus; 

books/supplies, of which the VA benefit generally covers only a portion; dependent 

care; and expenses related to a disability). Many of these other sources of educational benefits are able to offset these costs up to the total ‘‘cost of attendance.’’ 

While some VA benefits address certain nontuition costs, significant others are not 

covered. Limiting all eligible benefits to just tuition and fees would mean saddling 

the veteran with a larger financial burden. 

Pursuing a policy of VA as ‘‘last payer’’ is counterproductive to the goal of the 

amendments to the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program and disregards veterans’ service and 

dedication to this country by reducing their earned benefit. This policy would bring 

about further confusion and complication and result in greater financial burden for 

the veteran. As our testimony highlighted, much of this confusion can be addressed 

through better communication between the VA, institutions, and veterans. 

Note: Since the Subcommittee hearing, the Senate has reported the language for 

S. 3447 that includes a ‘‘last payer’’ provision. AASCU has strong concerns regarding this provision. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

September 20, 2010 

Mr. Donald O. Overton, Jr. 

Executive Director 

Veterans of Modern Warfare 

#33107 

P.O. Box 96503 

Washington, D.C. 20090 

Dear Mr. Overton: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

which took place on September 16, 2010. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Monday, November 1, 2010. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

5491. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

JL/ot 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
97 

November 1, 2010 

Questions for the Record from the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

Question 1: What do you mean that there is ‘‘no guarantee that the Yellow Ribbon Program will be capable of absorbing these monetary offsets . . . ’’ 

Response: As the law currently stands, the base benefit is set by state; the maximum benefit equates to the most expensive in-state undergraduate tuition and fees 

at a public institution of higher education in the state’s system. Although it may 

be adjusted for part-time enrollment or based on length of qualifying service, this 

benefit can cover full tuition and fees for a veteran attending a public institution 

as an in-state student. Veterans who attend a public institution as an out-of-state 

student or who attend a private institution may apply the maximum base benefit 

toward the out-of-state public or private institution tuition and fees. Given that private tuition and fees and out-of-state tuition and fees are generally more expensive 

than in-state public institutions the law established the Yellow Ribbon Program, a 

matching mechanism in which dollars that institutions provide to cover the remaining expenses are matched by the federal government. Public and private institutions 

may participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program. 

The new bill would not dramatically change the funding of public education for 

veterans, but they would alter the contribution to private education. Students attending public institutions would simply have their tuition and fee charges fully covered, effectively the same as the current program but with less administrative confusion. The proposed legislation varies slightly in that it calls for a $20,000 cap, as 

opposed to the national average of tuition and fees. 

A potential implication of these changes is that it will likely lower the amount 

that veterans would receive at private institutions and would also necessitate that 

institutions contribute more funds towards the Yellow Ribbon Program if they wish 

to participate at a level that aids all eligible veterans. 

However, the changes would establish a national standard and level the playing 

field for all veterans across all states. The 5 states adversely impacted; Texas, 

Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Hampshire may see a loss in Yellow 

Ribbon participation due to an insurmountable tuition offset formula, thus hindering veterans’ ability to continue their current programs of study. 

Question 2: What is the most common complaint that you hear about regarding 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill? 

Response: The most common complaint raised by our members is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) poor communications. VA must improve communications with veterans about their education benefits eliminating the current ambiguity 

surrounding eligibility and benefit delivery. An apparent lack of sufficient training 

by VA of educational case managers has resulted in misinformation and greater confusion. Veterans need to receive consistent and accurate information, so he/she can 

properly navigate the education process. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Donald D. Overton, Jr 

f 

Executive Director/COO 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

September 20, 2010 

Mr. James D. Wear 

Assistant Director for Veterans Benefits Policy 

National Veterans Service 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

200 Maryland Avenue, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dear Mr. Wear: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

which took place on September 16, 2010. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Monday, November 1, 2010. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
98 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

5491. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

JL/ot 

STATEMENT OF JIM WEAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

VETERANS BENEFITS POLICY, NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE, 

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONSE 

TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO UPDATE OF THE 

POST-9/11 GI BILL, SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 1, 2010 

Question 1: Do you believe that the individual state caps are failing to fully cover 

the cost of a public education at a 4-year in-state undergraduate institution. 

Response: We have no data to substantiate such a claim. The purpose of the instate cap and the subsequent complex mechanisms to calculate the cap was to ensure that a public education would be fully covered in a variety of situations. This 

calculation has been the source of much confusion, and has led to situations where 

veterans were not getting the amount they had anticipated, and that has certainly 

been the cause of confusion and concern. The VFW believes this mechanism should 

be replaced with a simple promise that VA will not fail to fully cover the cost of 

a public education at any 4-year in-state undergraduate institution nationwide. 

Question 2: If the current GI Bill functions as a transition program for veterans, 

should there be a component of the program dedicated to the psychological and social health of the participants who decide attend an institution of higher learning? 

Response: The VFW believes that robust psychological and social counseling and 

treatment should be readily available for all veterans regardless of their career or 

educational status. As such, we support greater access to Vet Centers across the 

country and any necessary funding to ensure readjustment challenges our veterans 

face will be met and overcome. The VFW also supports Chapter 33 career counseling 

for student veterans as needed to ensure the goal of entering into a successful career is achieved. 

Question 3: If a veteran is attending Texas schools this fall, such as Rice University where the cost of attendance is $47,871 or Southern Methodist University 

where the cost of attendance is $37,230 for Fall 2010, what would be H.R. 5933’s 

impact with regards to cost? 

Response: H.R. 5933 would modify the Yellow Ribbon program by eliminating 

language that allows the VA to match what a participating university provides up 

to the full cost of tuition. Under the language of H.R. 5933, the VA would reimburse 

actual costs up to $20,000 per year. In a circumstance where Rice University and 

Southern Methodist University had entered into the Yellow Ribbon program and 

were doing so with the aim of providing half the tuition and thereby helping veterans to attend said universities without cost, the $20,000 cap would not impact the 

veteran. In cases where these universities entered the program but were providing 

significantly smaller amounts, this $20,000 reimbursement would be of more value 

to the veteran. 

Question 4: In your testimony you state that your organization supports benefits 

that will fully cover undergraduate or graduate programs across the country. In 

your opinion, was the GI Bill intended to fully cover the cost of graduate programs 

across the country? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
99 

Response: The VFW believes that Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits should be made 

available to an eligible veteran regardless of the degree they choose to pursue, 

whether it is an undergraduate or graduate level degree. Further, The VFW strongly believes that these benefits must be expanded to include vocational training, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training. The purpose of the GI Bill is not merely to 

fill classrooms of four-year programs at institutions of higher learning, but to provide veterans with educational opportunities that will lead to a career that fits into 

their goals and ambitions. 

Question 5: The Senate Bill S. 3447 proposes to eliminate the interval payment 

for veterans. Do you think that veterans will be losing benefits if the interval payments are eliminated? 

Response: The VFW has undertaken a more thorough examination of the effects 

of eliminating interval payments, and opposes any such measure. Interval payments 

not only provide critical financial stability and important piece of mind for veterans, 

but they also provide the latitude many veterans need to pursue the career of their 

choosing. Many veterans would have difficulty finding seasonal or temporary work 

between semesters to make up for the loss of interval payments, particularly in the 

current economy. Others may choose to collect interval payments to make ends meet 

while they perform an internship or another type of unpaid work during summer 

months in accordance with their academic and career pursuits. Such an endeavor 

would be impossible for many veterans without interval payments. Further, we believe veterans should be empowered to decide for themselves whether or not interval 

payments are in the best interests of their careers and families. While some may 

be concerned that receiving these payments lowers the overall benefit of the GI Bill, 

we believe the evidence is clear that interval payments provide an important and 

necessary benefit, and that a one-size-fits-all approach of eliminating this option 

would hinder the success of many student veterans. 

Question 6: You have stated that you support H.R. 5933, does PNC John Brieden 

of Texas, and PNC Thomas Cadmus of Michigan also support the bill in light of how 

it affects veterans in their home state? 

Response: The two gentlemen you reference are past national commanders of the 

American Legion. As such, we are not in a position to comment. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

September 20, 2010 

Mr. Robert Madden 

Assistant Director 

National Economic Commission 

The American Legion 

1608 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Dear Mr. Madden: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

which took place on September 16, 2010. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Monday, November 1, 2010. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

5491. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

JL/ot 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
100 

American Legion 

Washington, DC. 

November 1, 2010 

Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chair 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chair Herseth Sandlin: 

Thank you for allowing The American Legion to participate in the Subcommittee 

hearing on the Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. I respectfully submit the following 

in response to your additional questions: 

Question 1: If a veteran is attending Texas schools this fall, such as Rice Univer- sity where the cost of attendance is $47,871 or Southern Methodist University 

where the cost of attendance is $37,230 for Fall 2010, what would be H.R. 5933’s 

impact with regards to cost. 

Response: H.R. 5933 will increase the tuition benefit for 97 percent of the student veteran population. That being said, the tuition issue needs to be addressed 

and H.R. 5933 ensures predictability because even in states with high tuition rates 

likes Texas a student veteran cannot expect that those will stay high year to year. 

For example in Florida and in Minnesota the rates dropped by 40 percent without 

warning leaving those student veterans in a tough predicament. Specifically referring to school such as Rice and SMU, the VA has created partnerships with private 

school to see gap the disparities between the tuition and what the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

offers. Rice and SMU would have to participate in the yellow ribbon program just 

like other institutions currently do. The George Washington University is currently 

contributing $18,000 a year per student to see that those veterans are not incurring 

mountains of debt. 

Question 2: In your testimony you state that your organization supports benefits 

that will fully cover undergraduate or graduate programs across the country. In 

your opinion, was the GI Bill intended to fully cover the cost of graduate programs 

across the country? 

Response: The American Legion supports increasing the Post-9/11 GI Bill to 

cover all programs: undergraduate, graduate and vocational schools just like the 

Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. 

Question 3: The Senate Bill S. 3447 proposes to eliminate the interval payment 

fro veterans. Do you think that veterans will be losing benefits of the interval payments are eliminated? 

Response: The American Legion has been a supporter of education benefits for 

veterans and their families. We currently support the House version: H.R. 5933 

which does not include taking away the interval payment. 

Question 4: You have stated that you support H.R. 5933, does PNC John Brieden 

of Texas, and PNC Thomas Cadmus of Michigan also support the bill in light of how 

it affects veterans in their home State? 

Response: Since the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, The American Legion has 

called on Congress to address the technical fixes to the current bill. The American 

Legion has organizational resolutions which direct our policy and position. Our current resolutions state that we support the technical fixes, to include: addition of 

flight training, vocational school, OJT/Apprenticeship, Title 32 AGR and the addition of housing allowance for those who attend school strictly online. These positions 

are reflected in the current legislation which allows us to support it. This is the position of The American Legion. 

Question 5: Does the Post-9/11 GI Bill currently fail to pay for a veterans education at a four-year public institution? 

Response: Yes, in some instances the Post-9/11 GI Bill does fail to cover the full 

cost of a four-year public institution. For example: 

• Title 32 AGR’s does not qualify for the New GI Bill at all and therefore their 

public school education is not covered. 

• Some public schools offer online education which then disqualifies those veterans from receiving the living allowance. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
101 

• Active duty servicemembers attending public schools do not receive a book stipend when they attend school. 

Question 6: You state that student veterans do not have sufficient information 

about the Post-9/11. What kind of information do student veterans need? 

Response: These student veterans are individuals who range from 21 years old 

to 35 years old, respectively. They are heavily involved in social media and technology. Getting them information correctly and promptly is what these student veterans need, not a week old letter that the VA send out, when they have already 

been confused for 2 weeks. I would like to suggest a few ideas of what information 

student veterans need: 

• When they should realistically expect to be paid for their benefits. This is a 

big deal considering the confusion that occurred last fall during the implementation of the New GI Bill. 

• Any means of tracking whether those payments are actually correct. 

• Meaningful information about what the irrevocable election to the new GI Bill 

means for them. 

• Students and schools have no idea what to do with overpayment and especially how to handle the situation. Plus the VA is not notifying the student 

that they received the overpayment from the school, inputting that specific 

data which causes for a lack of housing allowance due to the overpayment. 

• The VA Debt Management center can be very hard to reach over the phone 

and has made numerous errors on processing the repayment plans. There is 

no way to hold them accountable. 

Student veterans feel disenfranchised about the whole process thereby feeling like 

they aren’t being properly taken care of. There is no customer service. Many companies pride themselves on customer service and the veterans that I have spoken to 

feel that there is a lack of patience from the VA and that there is no one ‘‘over at 

the VA’’ who actually cares about what happens to the veteran. 

Thank you for your continued commitment to America’s veterans and their families. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Madden, Assistant Director 

f 

National Economic Commission 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

September 20, 2010 

Mr. Mark Krause 

Department of Veterans Affairs Program Manager 

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Krause: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

which took place on September 16, 2010. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Monday, November 1, 2010. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

5491. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
102 

JL/ot 

Hearing Date: September 16, 2010 

Committee: HVA 

Member: Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin 

Witness: Captain Krause 

Hardware and Software systems 

Question 1: When this project is completed, what will VA own in regards to the 

software and hardware systems. 

Answer: The VA, as a Federal entity, will own all SPAWARSYSCEN Atlantic 

purchased hardware; all government employee developed software and all commercial and non-commercial software license rights. 

Long-Term Solution 

Question 2: Is the entire long-term solution currently located in a VA facility? 

Answer: No, the entire LTS is not currently located in VA facility. The CH 33 

LTS is hosted at a commercial data center in Culpepper, Virginia called Terremark. 

At the conclusion of the CH 33 Long Term Solution project, the VA can continue 

to pay for this commercial hosting service or transition the application to one of the 

VA’s data centers. VA can provide more details. 

Benefits Enterprise Platform 

Question 3: Why was the Benefits Enterprise Platform unavailable and will this 

functionality be added in the future? 

Answer: The plan has always been to leverage the capabilities of the VA’s Benefits Enterprise Platform (BEP) to accomplish user account authentication and management for the CH 33 LTS. When it was determined the VA’s BEP team could not 

complete the necessary software development to deploy for CH 33 LTS Release 1.0 

in March 2010, SPAWAR implemented an alternative solution as a mitigation. In 

Release 2.0, the automation of the data conversion and retroactive housing payments became the priority to protect the Fall enrollment. As a result of the required 

performance testing and migration of the user account tasks, the BEP deployment 

was subsequently delayed and rescheduled for Release 4.0, scheduled for the end of 

December 2010. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

September 20, 2010 

Mr. Keith Wilson 

Director, Education Service 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Wilson: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

which took place on September 16, 2010. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Monday, November 1, 2010. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
103 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

5491. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

JL/ot 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Update of the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

September 16, 2010 

Question 1: Several witnesses mentioned the lack of consistent information veterans receive from VA officials, the information veterans receive when they call the 

1–800 number, and school officials. What is the VA doing or plan to do to address 

these inconsistencies. 

Response: We are committed to providing the best possible service to our Veterans. VA provides written policy guidance to all four Regional Processing Offices 

(RPOs) and conducts uniform training on a regular basis to ensure all RPOs and 

employees at the National Call Center are receiving the same information. In addition, RPO conference calls are conducted to address training, policy, or claims processing issues as they arise. The team leaders and Senior Education Case Managers 

(ECMs) at the National Call Center conduct monthly quality assurance reviews. The 

reviews consist of monitoring a combination of telephone calls and electronic inquiries. A standard quality checklist is used, and any potential problem areas are discussed with the individual ECMs. 

Eligibility requirements for the various education programs are complex, and 

many Veterans have eligibility to more than one program. Veterans’ individual circumstances, such as their delimiting date, amount of remaining entitlement, type 

of training pursued, and cost of training all factor significantly into decisions related 

to their VA benefits. Ongoing expansion and enhancement of our GI Bill Web site 

ensures a consistent source of accurate and comprehensive information for Servicemembers and Veterans. 

We will continue to aggressively train our employees and provide up-to-date information and training to school officials through our education liaison representatives 

(ELRs) to ensure that our Veterans are receiving accurate information as they make 

their decisions. VA’s ELRs are the primary points of contact for school officials. 

ELRs have a wide range of responsibilities in support of education benefits programs and work closely with school officials to inform them of changes in VA policies and procedures. We also send representatives to professional and educational 

conferences to discuss the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Additionally, VA is reaching out to Veterans, Servicemembers, and families using the enhanced GI Bill Web site, local and 

national radio ads and public events, and other media to promote general information about VA education benefits. 

Question 2: An organization has stated that ‘‘VA’s GI Bill benefits estimator is 

an inexcusable tool for a Department that has spent millions on GI Bill information 

technology’’. How many veterans have used this tool and what has been the feedback from veterans regarding its usefulness? 

Response: Since August 1, 2009, the benefits calculator has been accessed more 

than one million times by visitors to the GI Bill Web site. The feedback received 

by VA has been generally positive, but has also prompted improvements in the calculator, such as clarification of entry-level versus skill-level training, inclusion of 

rates for overseas training, and the addition of a disclaimer that calculated rates 

do not include the books and supplies stipend or supplemental educational assistance amounts. 

Question 3: Have you visited IAVA’s GI Bill calculator and can veterans rely on 

the advice from that calculator? 

Response: VA reviewed IAVA’s GI Bill calculator. The purpose of the calculator 

is to provide an estimate of the benefits an individual would be entitled to under 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill versus the Montgomery GI Bill—Active Duty (MGIB–AD) and 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
104 

the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP). During our review, we noted 

that the calculator provides an incorrect benefit estimate for individuals training 

under REAP. 

While the IAVA calculator could be a useful tool for individuals desiring to estimate their benefits, many variables, other than financial, affect the overall decision 

to use the Post-9/11 GI Bill. When a Veteran is deciding whether to use the Post9/11 GI Bill, factors such as delimiting date, months of entitlement, and types of 

training, are all elements that should be considered. 

Question 4: Have there been any students with appeals for claim re-evaluation 

taking up to a year to process? 

Response: VA is not aware of any students with appeals for claims re-evaluation 

that take one year to process. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide information 

specific to Post-9/11 GI Bill appeals because our appeals tracking system, VACOLS, 

does not specifically track this category of appeals. VBA, BVA and the Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) will work together to modify the system to track 

Post-9/11 GI Bill appeals data prospectively. 

Question 5: What is Secretary Shinseki’s view on the delayed implementation? 

Response: Secretary Shinseki recognizes the tremendous strides VA has made in 

delivering Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. VA’s primary focus has been on providing education benefits to Veterans, Servicemembers, and their families in a timely manner. 

Our accomplishments in implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Long-Term Solution (LTS) are significantly greater than any information technology project undertaken at VA. The new system was installed and records conversion was accomplished with no significant errors. Thus, VA was able to achieve our primary goal, 

which was to have the initial phases of the LTS installed in time to process fall semester claims without introducing processing errors or delays that might affect 

claims processing. Enrollment processing for the 2010 fall term is going very well, 

with over 260,000 students already paid as of October 4, 2010. By December 31, 

2010, VA expects to use the LTS to automate core internal Post-9/11 GI Bill claims 

processing functions. This automation is expected to help VA ensure timely processing and payment of Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. 

Question 6: Some stakeholders have stated that VA has known most of the tuition caps but has failed to publish them. Is this correct? 

Response: VA did not publish the maximum tuition and fee amounts until we 

received all of the rates from the State Approving Agencies (SAAs) and were able 

to verify any significant increase or decrease in rates from the previous academic 

year. 

VA issued a letter to the SAAs on May 4, 2010, asking them to provide their 

states’ maximum tuition and fee rates for the 2010–2011 academic year. A followup contact was sent on August 3, 2010. Most SAAs sent their maximum rates in 

a timely manner; however, some rates were revised in August as schools changed 

their tuition and fee charges before the fall semester began. All maximum rates 

were finalized by August 26, 2010. VA conducted an analysis of the rates and 

verified any significant increase or decrease in tuition or fees from the previous academic year with the SAAs. Once completed, the maximum rates were published on 

the VA Web site on August 30, 2010. 

For Fall 2011, VA plans to publish, on August 1, tuition and fee information for 

states that have finalized rates at that time. VA will also continue to encourage 

states to finalize and submit tuition and fee information to the SAAs as timely as 

possible. 

Question 7: Have there been instances where funds returned to the VA by institutions were not properly credited by the VA to individual students’ accounts? 

Response: VA became aware of concerns from school officials that some returned 

funds were not properly credited to individual students’ accounts. In response to 

those concerns, VA issued clarifying instructions to the RPOs to ensure that any returned funds were properly credited to individual students’ accounts. For example, 

the RPOs were informed to return checks to the school if the reason for the return 

or the exact dollar amount being refunded for each student could not be identified. 

Additionally, if the school reported that more funds were received than necessary 

for an individual’s tuition and fees, the RPOs were instructed to process an amended award to show the reduced tuition and fee charge, establish the appropriate debt 

in the student’s record, and then apply the remaining funds to the debt. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
105 

Question 8: If a veteran has an overpayment what advice would you give the veteran? 

Response: When an overpayment is established, each student receives a notification letter from VA that provides information about the student’s rights and responsibilities. The options for repayment of the debt are also provided. We suggest each 

Veteran review the letter to determine his/her best option. When Veterans contact 

VA, we can provide information about their enrollment status and direct them to 

the Debt Management Center (DMC) for specific collection questions. DMC specializes in the collection status, repayment plans, and measures taken if the debt is not 

repaid. 

Question 9: A witness has stated that VA has not issued clear, coherent and consistent Chapter 33 operational guidance to institutions. Is VA going to review their 

guidance to institutions to see where clarity may be needed? 

Response: VA continues to dialogue with schools through its ELRs and conducts 

outreach efforts to ensure consistent and easily-understood information is provided 

about the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In addition, we conduct webinar training sessions and 

continue to participate in schools’ national, regional, and local conferences. VA officials attended more than 100 training and informational conferences since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill to provide training, disseminate information, and 

answer questions from participants. VA routinely reviews the guidance as problems 

are called to our attention requiring additional clarification, and adjustments are 

made. 

SAAs also assist in outreach and dialogue efforts between VA and schools. As required by statute, VA contracts with each state to approve programs of education 

and support outreach. The SAAs provide information to schools, students, and employers. 

Question 10: Are the delays you are experiencing due to added functionality or 

is the long-term solution more challenging than originally anticipated? 

Response: The delays with the LTS are due to increases in functionality needed 

to improve claims processing capabilities, challenges with conversion of data from 

the interim system to the LTS, and a more complete understanding of the complexities of the interface with the Benefits Delivery Network. However, the successful 

delivery of Phases 1 and 2 of the LTS was an intense cooperative venture between 

VA Office of Information and Technology and the Veterans Benefits Administration. 

We are building the system as a team, and VA is delivering the system as a team. 

That relationship is the single largest contributing factor to the successful installation of the GI Bill system on schedule in March of this year, and the complete conversion of all GI Bill processing to this system in August. VA expects that the LTS 

will automate core internal claims processing procedures for Post-9/11 GI Bill claims 

by December 31, 2010. 

Question 11: When can veterans expect to receive retroactive payments for the 

housing allowance which increased in January? 

Response: VA began issuing checks with the 2010 basic allowance for housing 

(BAH) rates on September 1, 2010. Those enrolled in the Post-9/11 GI Bill did not 

have to do anything to receive the increased BAH amount or retroactive payment. 

The payment amount automatically increased for those beneficiaries whose rate increased between 2009 and 2010. At the same time, VA sent one-time payments for 

the retroactive BAH amount owed for training pursued between January 1, 2010 

and July 31, 2010. 

Question 12: How will the delays in the delivery of the systems specifically affect 

veterans? 

Response: Delays in the delivery of the LTS may impact the planned self-service 

capabilities where Veterans can interact with the system to receive information 

about their claim. VA will pursue development of self-service capabilities for the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill within FY2011. VA originally intended to explore self-service capabilities by December 2010, assuming no additional requirements for necessary 

claims processing functionality. However, a delay in self-service functionality would 

not impact the timely delivery of benefits to Veterans. 

Æ 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING