Two military retirees have sued the Department of Veterans Affairs for allegedly denying them GI Bill benefits in accordance with a Supreme Court decision last year that extended eligibility for an estimated 1.7 million veterans.
Attorneys for retired Army Lt. Col. Paul Yoon of Virginia and retired Air Force Col. Toby Doran of Oregon say the case, Rudisill v. McDonough, "unequivocally affirmed the rights of veterans" who accrued benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills to receive up to 48 months of benefits instead of the 36-month cap provided under the individual programs.
The VA argues that, under the ruling, only veterans with a break in service, as was the case with plaintiff James Rudisill, are eligible for the extra 12 months of benefits under both programs.
Read Next: Bodies of 3 US Soldiers Recovered from Swamp in Lithuania; Search for Last Missing Soldier Ongoing
The Supreme Court ruled last April that Rudisill, who served as an enlisted soldier and later as an Army officer, was entitled to benefits under both programs and should not have been limited to the time requirements of each individual program.
"The bottom line is this: Veterans who separately accrue benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills are entitled to both benefits," wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the decision.
At the time, attorneys from the firm Troutman Pepper Locke, which represented Rudisill pro bono, said the decision would help an estimated 1.7 million receive additional benefits.
Now representing Yoon and Doran, they say the VA's interpretation of the decision would greatly limit the number eligible for the extra coverage. They added that the department also has not established any mechanisms for helping eligible veterans receive their extra Post-9/11 benefits retroactively.
"It is clear error for the secretary to deny petitioners their full suite of educational benefits," the attorneys wrote in a petition for relief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Both Yoon and Doran served more than 23 years in their respective services, where they earned education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Yoon used 34 of 36 months of his Montgomery GI Bill for graduate degrees but later, under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, requested a transfer of benefits to his children and, in return, agreed to stay in the service -- a condition of the benefit, developed in the mid-2000s as a retention incentive.
When he sought to transfer what he thought was 14 months of benefits to his daughter to attend Harvard Law School, Yoon was awarded less than two months' benefits -- the amount left under his Montgomery GI Bill.
Doran served four years as an airman and used nearly 34 months of his Montgomery GI Bill to attend college afterward. He later served as an officer, qualifying for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. When he set out to transfer his remaining GI Bill benefits to his son for use at Oregon State University, he was awarded two months' worth of benefits rather than the 14 he expected.
The families have filed for emergency relief, arguing that their clients will likely prevail and, without receiving the benefits, face extensive bills and loans.
The attorneys general of all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Northern Mariana Islands filed a friends-of-the-court brief March 19 supporting Yoon and Doran, saying that the Rudisill ruling should apply to all veterans who earned education benefits under both programs, regardless of split service.
"For years, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has denied veterans rightfully earned education entitlements under a cramped reading of the two GI Bills," they wrote in their amicus brief. "The VA's denial of petitioners' claims here cannot be squared with Rudisill's clear reasoning. Rudisill compels the VA to honor the full 48 months of education benefits that petitioners were promised."
In a news release Jan. 3, VA officials stipulated that those eligible for the retroactive additional benefits included those who had at least two periods of service, which includes reenlistments.
They estimated that 1.04 million veterans may be eligible for the extra benefits and said they would automatically review claims for 660,000 veterans who qualified.
Attorneys for Yoon and Doran say that, in that effort, the VA already has wrongly denied veterans their benefits in addition to just the two who have filed suit.
"The court's intervention is needed urgently," they wrote.
A VA spokesman said the department does not comment on "pending or ongoing litigation."
Related: Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Education Entitlements Under Different GI Bills
