B-105303, FEB. 21, 1956

B-105303, FEB. 21, 1956

TO HONORABLE H. V. HIGLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 22, 1955, AND THE ACCOMPANYING COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. FLOOD, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, RELATIVE TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE VETERANS READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1952, PUBLIC LAW 550, 82D CONGRESS, 66 STAT. 663, TO AMEND THE APPLICABLE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS SO AS TO PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE OF PROGRAM OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING WHERE A VETERAN'S FAILURE TO CONTINUE HIS APPROVED PROGRAM IS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL, SUCH AS THE CLOSING OF THE INSTITUTION BECAUSE OF WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS OR FRAUD, OR BECAUSE OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE INSTITUTION'S APPROVAL BY THE STATE APPROVING AGENCY OR OTHER SIMILAR CAUSES.

THE LETTER FROM CONGRESSMAN FLOOD POINTS UP THE PROBLEM WHICH, IT IT IS STATED, FREQUENTLY ARISES SINCE THE DATE FOR INITIATION OF A PROGRAM IS EXPIRING, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND THE REGULATION MAY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WAS ANTICIPATED WHEN IT WAS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CONGRESS. CONGRESSMAN FLOOD STATES IN HIS LETTER THAT BECAUSE OF THE ABUSIVE PRACTICES ON THE PART OF SOME VETERANS OF CHANGING THEIR COURSES FROM ONE TO ANOTHER, FOUND TO EXIST UNDER THE SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1944, POPULARLY REFERRED TO AS THE GI BILL, THE WHOLE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF CONGRESS AS TO SUCH VETERANS HAD BEEN DEFEATED; THAT CONGRESS THEREFORE PROVIDED UNDER THE 1952 ACT FOR ONLY ONE CHANGE OF COURSE TO EACH VETERAN, BUT DID NOT ANTICIPATE A RIGID APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IN SITUATIONS OF THE TYPE DESCRIBED IN HIS LETTER, THAT IS, WHERE SHORTLY AFTER THE VETERAN MAKES THE ONE PERMITTED CHANGE OF COURSE, THE INSTITUTION HE IS ATTENDING IS CLOSED FOR REASONS FOR WHICH HE IS IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE, IT APPEARS THAT THE PARTICULAR INSTITUTION INVOLVED WAS CLOSED BECAUSE OF FRAUDULENT PRACTICES OF ITS OPERATORS AND THAT THE PROGRAM OR COURSES OF ENROLLED VETERANS ARE NOT OFFERED BY ANY OTHER INSTITUTION IN THE AREA. IT APPEARS FURTHER THAT THE APPLICATIONS FOR AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE OF PROGRAM OR COURSE SUBMITTED BY THE VETERANS AFFECTED SO AS PERMIT THEIR ENROLLMENT IN LOCAL INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED ON THE BASIS SET OUT IN VETERANS ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDE IN PERTINENT PART THAT "PUBLIC LAW 550, 82D CONGRESS, DOES NOT PERMIT MORE THAN ONE CHANGE OF PROGRAM IN ANY CASE.' 38 C.F.R. 21.2032 (A).

THE TERM "PROGRAM OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING" IS DEFINED IN SECTION 201 (3) OF THE VETERANS READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1952 AS MEANING "ANY SINGLE UNIT COURSE OR SUBJECT, ANY CURRICULUM, OR ANY COMBINATION OF UNIT COURSES OR SUBJECTS, WHICH IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS NECESSARY TO FULFILL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF A PREDETERMINED AND IDENTIFIED EDUCATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL, OR VOCATIONAL OBJECTIVE.'

SECTION 223 (A) OF THE ACT RELATING TO CHANGE OF PROGRAM PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

"SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 222, EACH ELIGIBLE VETERAN (EXCEPT AN ELIGIBLE VETERAN WHOSE PROGRAM HAS BEEN INTERRUPTED OR DISCONTINUED DUE TO HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, HIS OWN NEGLECT, OR HIS OWN LACK OF APPLICATION) MAY, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE END OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO INITIATE A PROGRAM OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING UNDER THIS TITLE, MAKE NOT MORE THAN ONE CHANGE OF PROGRAM OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING.'

EXAMINATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT DISCLOSES THAT SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES OF PROGRAM IN EMERGENCY AND WHAT MIGHT BE TERMED HARDSHIP CASES RECEIVED CAREFUL CONSIDERATION DURING THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS ON VARIOUS BILLS SEEKING TO PROVIDE EDUCATION BENEFITS FOR VETERANS. THESE CONSIDERATIONS RELATED PRIMARILY TO THE PARTICULAR APTITUDES A VETERAN MIGHT HAVE AND TO SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE VETERAN MIGHT FIND HIMSELF BECAUSE OF AN UNWISE CHOICE OF OBJECTIVE. THEY APPARENTLY DID NOT INCLUDE, AT LEAST SPECIFICALLY, THE PROBLEM WHICH MIGHT ARISE OUT OF THE DISAPPROVAL OR DISCONTINUANCE OF AN INSTITUTION OR THE WITHDRAWAL OF COURSE APPROVALS BY THE STATE APPROVING AGENCY. SEE REPORT OF HEARINGS HELD IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF 1952, PP. 1321-1330; ALSO PP. 1396-1401, AND 1417-1420.

HOWEVER, AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE, H.R. 7656, WHICH ULTIMATELY BECAME PUBLIC LAW 550, INCLUDED PROVISIONS GRANTING AUTHORITY IN THE ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE A CHANGE OF PROGRAM IF HE FOUND THAT "THERE EXIST OTHER COGENT REASONS FOR THE CHANGE.' THIS PROVISION WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE BILL AS REPORTED IN THE HOUSE.

IN ITS REPORT RECOMMENDING THE ENACTMENT OF H.R. 7656, THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS REVIEWED THE CHANGE OF PROGRAM PROBLEM. THE COMMITTEE RECOGNIZED THE FACT THAT SOME VETERANS WERE CHANGING FROM ONE COURSE TO ANOTHER WITHOUT MAKING ANY REAL EFFORT TO PREPARE THEMSELVES FOR THE JOB OF EARNING A LIVELIHOOD, AND CONCLUDED "THAT BY LIMITING THE CHANGE OF PROGRAM TO ONE CHANGE IT WILL BE SAFEGUARDING THE INTERESTS OF THE VETERANS AND AT THE SAME TIME CONSIDERABLY REDUCING THE COST OF ADMINISTRATION.' HOUSE REPORT NO. 1943, 82D CONGRESS, PP. 29-30. DURING THE HEARINGS ON H.R. 7656 JUNE 10-17, 1952, BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS' EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION BENEFITS OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, UNITED STATES SENATE, CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE, THE SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION, STATED THAT "TO PREVENT COURSE- JUMPING AND PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL GOING, THE BILL LIMITS THE VETERAN TO ONE COURSE CHANGE.' REPORT OF HEARINGS, P. 47. IN ITS REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT H.R. 7656 BE PASSED, THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE STATED THAT IT WAS THE POSITION OF THIS COMMITTEE "THAT A VETERAN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED EVEN ONE CHANGE OF PROGRAM WHERE SUCH CHANGE WAS OCCASIONED BY HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, NEGLECT, OR LACK OF APPLICATION; THEREFORE, A PROVISION WAS ADDED TO MEET THIS CONTINGENCY.' SENATE REPORT NO. 1824, 82D CONGRESS, P. 6. AGREEMENT WAS REACHED ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND IT WAS ADOPTED IN CONFERENCE. HOUSE REPORT NO. 2481, 82D CONGRESS, P. 2.

SECTION 221 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "AN ELIGIBLE VETERAN MAY SELECT A PROGRAM OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING TO ASSIST HIM IN ATTAINING AN EDUCATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL OR VOCATIONAL OBJECTIVE AT ANY EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING ESTABLISHMENT SELECTED BY HIM WHETHER OR NOT LOCATED IN THE STATE IN WHICH HE RESIDES.' IT SEEMS CLEAR, HOWEVER, FROM THE "DECLARATION OF POLICY" SET OUT IN SECTION 102 AND FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS A WHOLE PROVIDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE VETERAN (SECTION 222), AND APPROVAL OF THE COURSES OFFERED BY THE SELECTED INSTITUTION (SECTION 242), THAT THERE IS NO UNDERTAKING OR GUARANTEE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE SELECTED PROGRAM OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING MAY BE INITIATED OR COMPLETED BY THE VETERAN AT THE PARTICULAR INSTITUTION SELECTED. THIS WAS BROUGHT OUT BY CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE SENATE WHERE HE EMPHASIZED THAT "WE PLAN TO AID NOT TOTALLY SUBSIDIZE THE VETERAN * * * WE WILL HELP HIM ATTEND THE SCHOOL HE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE ATTENDED HAD HE NOT BEEN CALLED TO MILITARY SERVICE * * *.' REPORT OF HEARINGS HELD JUNE 10-17, 1952, P. 44. THE ACTION OF DISAPPROVING AN INSTITUTION BECAUSE OF WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATIONS OR FRAUD, AND THE WITHDRAWING OF APPROVAL OF COURSES FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT MANIFESTLY ARE PROTECTIVE MEASURES DESIGNED TO SAFEGUARD THE INTERESTS OF THE VETERANS ENROLLED IN THE INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED, AND CONGRESS WAS FULLY AWARE THAT SUCH CONTINGENCIES MIGHT ARISE AS EVIDENCED BY SECTION 234, 241, AND 256 OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDING FOR SUCH ACTION. SIGNIFICANTLY, NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR A CHANGE OF PROGRAM UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HENCE, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IT WAS THE DEFINITE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF CONGRESS TO LIMIT VETERANS RECEIVING EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS UNDER THE ACT TO ONLY ONE CHANGE OF PROGRAM WITHOUT EXCEPTION. WE ARE THEREFORE CONSTRAINED TO THE VIEW THAT PROVISION BY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MORE THAN ONE CHANGE OF PROGRAM MAY RESULT IN INCONVENIENCE OR HARDSHIP IN SOME CASES DEPENDING UPON THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY BE INVOLVED. BUT, IF EXCEPTIONS ARE TO BE MADE WE THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE BY APPROPRIATE AMENDATORY LEGISLATION.