DeSousa v. Brown — change of program rules governed by amended statute and regulation

The veteran sought an additional change of program for chapter 34 education benefits after multiple prior educational choices, including coursework in electronics and computer-related fields. The Board denied the claim, reasoning that the requested associate degree program was a different vocational objective and that the prior change was not necessitated by circumstances beyond the veteran’s control. While the case was on appeal, the governing statute and regulation concerning changes of program were amended. The Court held that, under Karnas, the Board had to readjudicate the claim using the version of the law or regulation most favorable to the veteran and had to explain, with adequate reasons or bases, whether the claimant’s CCJC program constituted a change of program and whether any additional change was compelled by circumstances beyond his control. The Court also required the Board to determine the correct delimiting date, because the Board’s date appeared inconsistent with the Secretary’s later position. The decision was vacated and remanded for readjudication under the updated law and with proper reasons or bases.

When a claimant’s appeal remains pending after an intervening change in law or regulation, the Board must apply the version most favorable to the veteran unless Congress or the Secretary has provided otherwise, and it must support its determinations about program-change status and delimiting date with adequate reasons or bases.

Education-benefits cases can turn on intervening statutory or regulatory amendments, so advocates should always test whether a later, more favorable rule applies on appeal. The Board also cannot rely on conclusory statements when deciding whether a new school program is a disqualifying change of program or when calculating the benefit delimiting date.

It is a useful precedent for chapter 34/education-benefits appeals involving program changes, because it shows that intervening amendments may broaden eligibility and require remand. It also reinforces the Board’s obligation to provide a reasoned explanation on threshold eligibility questions that affect whether benefits were timely and properly sought.

Inadequate Reasons or Bases [Procedural Error]

A veteran begins one VA-approved training program, later switches to a similar computer-related degree, and VA denies an additional change of program under older rules. If the governing statute or regulation changed during the appeal, the Board must reconsider which version is more favorable and explain whether the later program is truly a new vocational objective.

Use this case to argue for remand when VA or the Board relied on outdated education-benefit rules, failed to address an intervening statutory/regulatory amendment, or gave only conclusory reasons for denying a change-of-program request or calculating a delimiting date.

Karnas v. Derwinski, Gilbert v. Derwinski, Fletcher v. Derwinski, Quarles v. Derwinski