Under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 plans, veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits – regardless of how long they served, or how many periods of service they had. Image: Africa Studio/Shutterstock.com
Veterans who have multiple periods of service have lost some flexibility – and the opportunity for remuneration of costs – when using their GI Bill benefits.
In a case involving a veteran who wanted to use provisions of both the Montgomery and the subsequent Post-9/11 GI bills, a full panel of 12 judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sided with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which had ruled against him.
The case involves James R. Rudisill, a former soldier who served separate terms and later was accepted to Yale Divinity School. Rudisill had sought a longer period of GI Bill entitlements because of his multiple periods of service.
Under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 plans, veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits – regardless of how long they served, or how many periods of service they had.
Judge Timothy Belcher Dyk wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by eight colleagues on the panel. He noted that veterans can earn both Montgomery and Post-9/11 education benefits concurrently, but that Congress had enacted limits to how much beneficiaries can earn. The statutes, he wrote, included a 48-month general cap, a bar on receiving benefits from both programs concurrently, and a provision that prevents veterans with single periods of service from earning more than 36 months of benefits under the two programs combined.
Dyk also cited another provision of particular relevance in Rudisill’s case – involving veterans like him who have used a portion – but not all – of their benefits under one program.
Rudisill contended, Dyk wrote, “that this limit does not apply to veterans with multiple periods of qualifying service and that he is entitled to a full 48 months of benefits.”
Rudisill had used 25 months and 14 days of Montgomery benefits and was “likely entitled to an additional 22 months and 16 days of benefits, which he could take entirely as Post-9/11 benefits,” Dyk wrote.
Rudisill’s court challenge arose after VA instead approved 10 months and 16 days of Post-9/11 benefits, citing an agreement he had signed that amounted to an “irrevocable election” to receive benefits under the newer GI Bill.
The lower Court of Veterans Appeals had agreed with Rudisill, leading VA to appeal the case to the Federal Circuit. The appeals court sided with VA.
“Rudisill contends that the pro-veteran canon of interpretation supports the result he favors,” Dyk wrote. “Whatever the role this canon plays in statutory interpretation, it plays no role where the language of the statue is unambiguous – the situation here. It is not our task to rewrite the statute to make it more favorable to veterans when the statutory language is clear.”
The decision essentially limited Rudisill’s remaining Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to the 10 months and 16 days VA had approved.
Subsequent news reports about the case indicated that Rudisill plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pentagon Orders New Task Force, Disbands Counter‑Drone Office
Trump to move Space Command headquarters out of Colorado
Civilian FERS Now? How to Buy Back Your Military Time if You Stand to Gain
Audit: Rise in ‘Severe Staffing Shortages’ at VA Medical Facilities
Can My Military Discharge be Upgraded? Yes
The Rules for Getting Both Military Retired Pay and a Federal Annuity
Credit for Military Service for Federal Retirement Annuities