Over 1 million veterans ripped off after outdated ‘break in service’ rule blocks certain benefitsBy Jacob
- mdaviscvono
- Mar 27
- 3 min read
By Jacob Willeford, 16 days ago
AROUND one million United States military veterans could be missing out on some crucial assistance.
The benefits controversy continues and follows a major U-turn on certain health perks after a massive outcry.
A group of organizations advocating for service members is locked in a court battle this spring, challenging a specific “break in service” rule from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), according to Newsweek.
In 2024, the Supreme Court decided that veterans who are separately eligible for two GI Bill programs that help them pay for college or job training can use them both up to a cap of 48 months.
The Commonwealth of Virginia, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and other individual veterans and their family members argue, however, that the VA still doesn’t allow for that, even with the Supreme Court decision, according to a court filing.
Luke A Schamel, an attorney representing the VFW, told the publication that, according to VA estimates, about 1.2 million veterans are impacted by the “break in service” rule, which doesn’t let them reach full education and job training benefits like they’re entitled to.
“Many [veterans] feel like the VA is pulling the rug out from underneath them after they already paid with their service,” Schamel explained.
“Veterans who served continuously for decades are receiving fewer benefits than people who served only for a handful of years, and that just doesn’t make any sense.”
So, how does this happen?
BREAK IT DOWN
How the VA applies the 48-month combined cap across both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill is where the problem lies, according to the plaintiffs.
They claim that the VA is conducting the process based on periods of service rather than years served.
That means, per the plaintiffs, that veterans who served continuously over several years can get fewer benefits than those who had shorter and interrupted service periods.
The lawsuit argues that the “break-in-service” requirement in the Veterans Benefits Administration’s claims manual, imposed by the VA, requires veterans to have separate periods of service through a break to get the full 48 months, despite the Supreme Court ruling in 2024.
Schamel added that the VA remains focused on “the number of distinct periods of service that a veteran has, rather than the number of years,” which results in situations for veterans that do not “make any sense.”
In the filing, the plaintiffs also cited examples of where this situation played out for two veterans, with the first having served more than 34 continuous years and the second over 27.
Both were denied the full 48 months of education and job training assistance.
Even so, another veteran who had a break in service qualified for the additional months of benefits with fewer years served in total.
CONFUSION CONTINUES
The confusion is compounded in how the benefits are described to veterans as well, according to Schamel.
Eligibility is typically laid out as two or three years for Montgomery and three years for Post-9/11.
Veterans who served more than six years often assume they can have access to both bills up to the combined 48-month cap.
“A lot of them are confused, and many of them feel like they’re not being treated fairly,” the attorney said.
If the lawsuit is successful and the “break in service” rule is taken away, the VA will have to refrain from denying claims immediately.
That means that veterans who currently applied should be accepted.
Previous denials are still being challenged in the suit, with claims that the VA failed to consider education reimbursement for veterans and their families who paid costs out-of-pocket.
The Federal Circuit still has to issue a final ruling.
Another veterans rule involving medication sparked anger in February.
Millions are also at risk after an “evaluating” rule received a fresh interpretation.
Comments