Citation Nr: 0722244 Decision Date: 07/23/07 Archive Date: 08/02/07 DOCKET NO. 05-14 356 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUE Basic eligibility for entitlement to educational assistance benefits pursuant to Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code (Montgomery GI Bill or Chapter 30 benefits). WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Katz, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a December 2004 decision by the RO denying entitlement to education benefits. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran served on active duty with regards to establishing eligibility for education benefits under Chapter 30 for a total of 1 year, 20 months, and 24 days. 2. The remainder of the veteran's service was as a cadet at the Coast Guard Academy thereby not qualifying as active duty with regards to establishing eligibility for education benefits under Chapter 30. CONCLUSION OF LAW The requirements for eligibility for education benefits under Chapter 30 have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 3002 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.7020, 21.7042 (2006). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION As a preliminary matter, the Board is required to address its duty to assist under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act ("VCAA"). The VCAA provides, among other things, that VA shall make reasonable efforts to notify a claimant of the relevant evidence necessary to substantiate a claim for benefits under laws administered by VA. The VCAA also requires VA to assist a claimant in obtaining that evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002). In this regard, the Board observes that the record on appeal does not reflect that the veteran was notified of the VCAA as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a). However, upon further review, it is not clear that such notice is required in this case because the benefits sought are found in Chapter 30 of Title 38, and Chapter 1606 of Title 10, United States Code. See Barger v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 132, 138 (2002). In addition, as will be explained below, the Board finds that the law, and not the evidence, is dispositive in this case and therefore no further duty to assist exists. The VCAA does not affect matters on appeal when the issue is limited to statutory interpretation. See Mason v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 129, 132 (2002); DelaCruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2002) (VCAA not applicable where law, not the factual evidence, is dispositive); Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2002) (VCAA has no effect on appeal limited to interpretation of law). The veteran claims that she should be entitled to education benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § Chapter 30. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 3002(6)(B) and 38 C.F.R. § 21.7020(ii)(B), active duty for educational benefit purposes is defined as not including service as a cadet at one of the service academies. The minimum required amount of time with qualifying active duty is 2 years where discharge is not because of a service- connected disability or medical condition which preexisted service on active duty and which VA determines is not service connected, or hardship discharge, or at the convenience of the government. 38 C.F.R. § 21.7042. The basic facts in this case are not in dispute. The veteran acknowledged the following at a July 2006 Travel Board hearing before the undersigned judge. The following facts regarding service dates for the veteran were also verified by the RO prior to the case being certified to the Board. The veteran served as a cadet at the Coast Guard Academy from July 2002 through August 2004. The veteran testified she chose to be discharged because she no longer wished to serve the Coast Guard as a cadet at the Academy and instead began inactive duty service in the Coast Guard Reserves. Prior to the veteran's service as a cadet at the Coast Guard Academy, the veteran served on active duty in the Coast Guard beginning in August 2000 and accumulated qualifying active duty service for education benefit purposes of 1 year, 10 months, and 24 days. The veteran did not report, and there is no evidence of, any active duty service prior to these dates or since. The Board has no option but to decide this case in accordance with the applicable law; thus, there is no option but to deny the claim. Simply put, the United States Supreme Court has held that payments of money from the Federal Treasury are limited to those authorized by statute. See, e.g., Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 426 (1990); Davenport v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 522 (2002). In other words, Congress enacts federal laws authorizing monetary benefits, and, unless an individual meets all of the requirements of a particular law, he or she is not entitled to the benefit; and the benefit cannot be awarded, regardless of the circumstances. Because the claimant failed to meet the service requirements as prescribed by law, the claim must be denied as a matter of law. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Thus, the Board, while sympathetic to the veteran's argument, is unable to provide a legal remedy. ORDER Entitlement to educational assistance under Chapter 30 is denied. ____________________________________________ C. W. SYMANSKI Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs