ࡱ> hjgG %bjbjَ %]4Y RRRRRRRR  $  D RRRRRD RRRR^RR R : , R6*q Department of Memorandum Veterans Affairs Date: January 9, 2001 From: General Counsel (021) Subj: Qualification for MGIB benefits under 38 U.S.C. 3011(1)(a)(B) and 38 C.F.R. 21.7020(b)(5) when the individual had a break in active duty service To: Chairman, Board of Veterans Appeals QUESTION PRESENTED: May a veteran qualify for MGIB benefits under 38 U.S.C. 3011(1)(a)(B) and 38 C.F.R. 21.7020(b)(5) when the individual had an interruption of active duty service after June 30, 1985, and before July 1, 1988, which was of less than 90 days in length? DISCUSSION: The individual served on active duty during the period from October 31, 1975, to October 30, 1979, which entitled him to receive educational assistance under the chapter 34, title 38, United States Code, GI Bill education assistance program. The entitlement apparently was not used before the termination of that program, effective December 31, 1989. 2, The individual reentered active duty on October 6, 1980, and thereafter served two consecutive enlistments of continuous active duty, the last of which was completed on October 28, 1986. The reason given for his discharge on that date was the expiration of his last period of active duty commitment. He subsequently reenlisted one month later on November 28, 1986, and served on continuous active duty until November 27, 1989. The statutory provision governing the individuals entitlement to Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) education benefits is found in 38 U.S.C. 3011 (a)(1)(B), which reads in pertinent part as follows: [An individual who had chapter 34 eligibility on December 31, 1989,] and was on active duty at any time during the period beginning on October 19, 1984, and ending on July 1, 1985, continued on active duty without a break in service and after June 30, 1985, serves at least three years of continuous active duty in the Armed Forces [is entitled to MGIB benefits]. Your question asks whether the portion of that provision requiring no break in service applies to the period of active duty service required to be performed after June 30, 1985. We find that, read literally, the cited statute permits no break in service either for the qualifying period of active duty required before or after July 1, 1985. However, the statute contains the added requirement of at least 3 years of continuous active duty service performed after June 30, 1985, for MGIB entitlement. Consequently, to answer your question, we must determine the meaning of, and relationship between these requirements. The term break in service has been interpreted by VA, based upon longstanding Department of Defense practice, to mean a period of interrupted service of more than 90 days between two enlistments. 38 C.F.R. 21.7020(b)(5). In the instant case, therefore, the one-month hiatus in the veterans service between October 28 and November 28, 1986, does not constitute a break in service. As explained below, however, that hiatus did interrupt the continuity of the veterans active duty service for purposes of the MGIB statute. By regulation, VA has interpreted the MGIBs continuous active duty requirement as mandating active duty served without interruption. 38 C.F.R. 21.7020(b)(6). This regulation further details statuses which are not regarded as interruptions for the purpose of determining continuity of service. 38 C.F.R. 21.7020(b)(6)(ii)-(vi). The record available to us here fails to disclose that the one-month hiatus in the veterans service in 1986 meets any of the exceptions and, therefore, it constitutes an interruption in the continuity of the veterans period of active duty service after June 30, 1985, VA regulations, however, do not further explicate what constitutes service after June 30, 1985, but merely restate the statutory requirement. See, 38 C.F.R. 21.2044(a)(4) (after June 30, 1985-(i) The individual serve at least three years continuous active in the Armed Forces.). The issue here, thus, is narrowed to whether the interruption in continuity of the veterans post-June 30, 1985, active duty service disqualifies him for MGIB benefits. Apparently, the veteran contends that, even if the continuity of the active duty he was serving on July 1, 1985, thereafter was interrupted before he had completed 3 continuous years, that interruption was not a break in service and his subsequent completion of 3 years continuous service from November 28, 1986, to November 27, 1989, qualifies him for MGIB entitlement. In other words, the argument is that the veteran meets the statutory requirement because he was on active duty on October 19, 1984, continued without a 90-day break in service thereafter, and served 3 continuous years on active duty during a period that was completely after June 30, 1985. Under this interpretation, of course, it would not matter whether his October November 1986 interruption in service broke the continuity of the period of active duty he was serving on July 1, 1985. The veterans argument reflects a plausible reading of the statute. It does not accord, however, with VAs interpretation that the 3 years of continuous active duty needed to earn chapter 30 entitlement must be served from July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1988. See, VA Procedures Manual M22-4, Part V, change 16, p. 1-11 (1999) (copy attached). As discussed below, we find VAs interpretation, if not the only one possible, is the most reasonable one given the context and purpose of the statute at issue. We note that VAs interpretation of the pertinent law and regulation here is the same as it was at the inception of the chapter 30 programs. See, DVB Circular 20-85-6, Exhibit 5, par. B(2), p. 17 (1985) (copy attached). We also note that the original statutory language of the year continuous active duty requirement, i.e., 38 U.S.C. 1411(a)(1)(B)(i), has not since been changed (see, 38 U.S.C. 301(a)(1)(b)(i)). Therefore, to help glean Congress intent in this matter, we believe it appropriate to examine the context in which such language first was enacted. [S]tatutory interpretation is a holistic endeavor that requires consideration of a statutory scheme in its entirety; when interpreting a statue the court should look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy. See Gallegos v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 50, 59 (2000) (Farley, J., dissenting) (quoting Meeks v. West, 216 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Title VII of Public Law 98-525, the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1985 (October 19, 1984), established the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program, or so-called New GI Bill. The major impetus for and objective of the new program was to provide education benefits as a way to attract and retain high quality personnel for both the active and reserve components of the military. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 98-185 (1983) (report to accompany H.R, 1400, 98th Cong.); see, also, H.R. Rep. No. 98-691, at 262-265 (1984). Toward this end, the active duty service component of the New GI Bill provided a new educational assistance test program under chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, for individuals first entering active duty during the test period from July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1988. To be entitled to the full benefit, the individual had to serve an initial term of 3 years on active duty or 2 years active duty followed by 4 years in the Selected Reserve. (Pub. L. No. 98-525, title VII, sec. 702(a)(1); 38 U.S.C. 1411(a), (b).) As a collateral matter, the same legislation also allowed certain individuals who were eligible for Vietnam Era GI Bill benefits (chapter 34, title 38, United States Code) to establish New GI Bill entitlement. Specifically, section 1411(a)(1)(B) of title 38, United State Code, as added by Public Law 98-525, provided that an individual who had chapter 34 entitlement remaining on December 31, 1989, could become entitled to education benefits under the new chapter 30 program if the individual was without a break in service on active duty since December 31, 1976, and [ ] after June 30, 1985, serves at least three years of continuous active duty in the Armed Forces. This opportunity for certain chapter 34 eligibles to convert to the new program was granted primarily in response to concern that, unless some action were taken to extend education benefit availability for such persons, a number of them might leave the military to use their chapter 34 benefits before the termination of that program on December 31, 1989. See, S. Rep. No. 99-2000, at 37 (1985) (report to accompany S. 1887, 99th Cong.). Thus, the House and Senate conferees on this legislation, after rejecting a Senate-passed amendment to simply repeal the 1989 program termination date, adopted a new approach to the issue: With respect to the 1989 termination date, individuals with an entitlement to benefits under the Vietnam-era assistance program could, if they elected to do so, accrue a new entitlement [to basic chapter 30 benefits] after three additional years of active duty service with no reduction in basic pay. In addition, to this basic benefit, they would be eligible to receive one-half of their educational entitlement under [chapter 34]. H.R. Rep. No. 98-1080, at 307 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4286. The question here, of course, is when the required additional 3 years of active duty must be served to accrue entitlement under the new program. Clearly, the New GI Bill provisions applicable to new recruits limited entitlement to those who first entered active duty during the expressly circumscribed 3-year test period. However, the pilot program provisions applicable to persons with chapter 34 eligibility merely stated that the qualifying 3 years of continuous active duty must be served after June 30, 1985, with no mention of a date thereafter when such duty either must commence or be completed. The legislative history for Public Law 98-525 is sparse on this issue and our review yielded no specific explanation of the meaning contemplated for the language after June 30, 1985, serves at least three years of continuous active duty. However, the reference in the aforementioned 1984 conference report to accruing entitlement after 3 additional years of active duty service does suggest, given the context, an expectation that, for chapter 34 eligible persons, such service would begin to run from the programs effective date, July 1, 1985. In other words, the qualifying service needed to earn new entitlement would be additional to the service performed without a break since December 31, 1976, until the date the new program took effect. The end of the additional qualifying 3-year service period after June 30, 1985, thereby, would coincide with the termination of the programs test period on June 30, 1988. This interpretation seems particularly reasonable when compared to the rather dubious proposition that Congress would enact a time-limited pilot program, yet, intentionally leave the qualifying service period open-ended for a collateral group of potential eligibles to serve, at their choice, entirely beyond the test period. We did find some legislative history for subsequent national defense authorization legislation that, while concededly not probative of Congress intent in enacting the Public Law 98-525 language in question, does reflect an essentially contemporaneous construction of the latter statute akin to VAs interpretation (i.e., that after June 30, 1985 in this context means from July 1, 1985). For instance, a report by the Senate Armed Service Committee on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986, S. 1029, 99th Cong. (1985) issued only 6 months after enactment of Public Law 98-525, describes the requirements for an individual eligible under chapter 34 to establish entitlement for chapter 30 benefits as follows: To qualify for this new benefit, [chapter 34-eligible persons who remained on continuous active duty since earning those benefits] must serve at least three more years of active duty during the test period or, in the case of the combination program, two years of active duty during the test program followed by four years of duty in the Selective Reserve. (Emphasis added.) S. Rep. No. 99041, at 197 (1985). Thu, it appears that the Senate Armed Services Committee, like VA, understood the statute to mean that the chapter 34 eligible person must perform the qualifying 3 years of additional active duty from July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1988 (i.e., during the test period). Additionally, during consideration of another Senate bill version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (S. 1160, 99th Cong. (1985)), Senator Cranston (D.-CA), the former Chairman, and the then-current Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (and a conferee on the original New GI Bill legislation) made the following comment in discussing provisions of that bill containing proposed changes to the New GI Bill: Under current law, individuals who entered the service prior to January 1, 1977, and therefore have eligibility for the current Vietnam-era GI Bill provided for by chapter 34 of title 38, and who have remained on active duty without a break in service since December 31, 1976, and continue on active duty for 3 years after this new program becomes effective will be eligible. The purpose of this provision, which I helped develop as a Senate conferee, was to provide these individuals who remain continuously on active duty for this period of at least 11 years with relief from the 1989 termination date for the use of all benefits under the Vietnam-era GI Bill. In the absence of this relief, they would both lose the opportunity to use their Vietnam-era GI Bill benefits and gain no eligibility under the new program. (Emphasis added.) 31 Cong. Rec. S7518 (daily ed. June 5, 1985) (statement of Sen. Cranston). Arguably, if Congress had decided to design a new, ongoing GI Bill program for Vietnam era veterans, it might have permitted them an open-ended period after June 30, 1985, within which to perform the service needed to qualify for the program. However, the expressed objective here was to resolve the dilemma faced by many active duty persons who must decide in the near future whether to continue their military careers or leave the services in order to use the [chapter 34] educational benefits earned before December 31, 1989, when such benefits expired. H.R. Rep. No. 98-691, at 263 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4220. Thus, one reasonably could infer that Congress resolved to provide targeted relief in the new pilot peacetime GI Bill program it enacted that would encourage servicepersons not to leave the service before December 31, 1989. Instead, it would allow them to earn entitlement under the new program by remaining on active duty during the test period. They then could use that new entitlement after the chapter 34 program expired. Further, it seems a reasonable assumption that Congress contemplated an eligible chapter 34 veteran would vest entitlement under the new program during the test period. Otherwise, were the program to lapse, the relief of which Senator Cranston spoke might go for naught, and affected veterans would both lose the opportunity to use their Vietnam-era GI Bill benefits and gain no eligibility under the new program. Id. The structure of the statute at issue, itself, suggests Congress intended thereby to establish a front-end military service requirement, which a chapter 34 service member must meet to qualify for conversion to the chapter 30 program, and a back-end service requirement, which a member must meet to actually earn chapter 30 entitlement. As to the front end requirement, i.e., the language at the beginning of section 1411(a)(1)(B), VA determined that a chapter 34 eligible person must serve on active duty from December 31, 1976 (the last date for entering qualifying chapter 34 service), to July 1, 1985 (the effective date of the new chapter 30 program), without a complete separation from active duty of more than 90 days. See, DVB Circular 20-85-6, Exhibit 5, par. B. (July 18, 1985); see, also, S. Rep. No 99-96, at 7 (1985) (noting that under Department of Defense policy, 90 days is generally the period used to define a break in service.). Further, VA contemporaneously interpreted the back-end requirement, i.e., clause (i) of section 1411(a)(1)(B), as meaning that the individual must serve 3 years of active duty, with no interruption whatsoever, from July 1, 1985, to June 30, 1988. See, DVB Circular 20-85-6, Exhibit 5, par. B (1985); see, also, Department of Defense Directive No. 1322.16, par. E.3.e. (1985) (the Secretary concerned must [e]nsure that all service members eligible for benefits under chapter 34.are made aware of the conversion provision [title VII, Public Law 98-525], and that separation before July 1, 1988, disqualifies them from the benefits of Chapter 30.). Together, both these ends equal the minimum 11 1/2 year period of active duty mentioned by Senator Cranston as required to obtain the relief from the chapter 34 termination Congress intended to provide. Following enactment of the chapter 30 program, Congress, on three occasions, made amendments to adjust the front-end requirement (ultimately to its current form) and, in between, made the program permanent, without making any change to the back-end service requirement. First, Public Law 99-145 (November 8, 1985) amended sections 1411 and 1412 (now sections 3011 and 3012) to delete the clause without a break in service since December 31, 1976, thus, eliminating the front-end requirement altogether. This was done to permit those with Vietnam Era GI Bill benefits who reenter the armed forces, but who have had a break in service since the time they earned those earlier benefits, to earn benefits under the test program which could be utilized after December 31, 1989. S. Rep. No. 99-41, at 198 (1985); see also, id. at 199, It should be emphasized that these 1985 amendments only were intended to provide retroactive relief for Vietnam-era veterans [then] currently on active duty who have had a break in service since December 31, 1976. S. Rep. No. 99-118, at 440 (1985) (conference report to accompany S. 1160, 99th Cong. (1985)). In effect, Public Law 99-145 broadened the pool of chapter 34 eligibles who could qualify to earn chapter 30 entitlement by serving the required 3 years of continuous active duty during the test period. Within a year, however, Public Law 99-576 (October 28, 1986) reinserted a restriction covering the pre-New GI Bill service required for the combined benefits. It permitted eligibility if the individual was on active duty on October 19, 1984, and was without a break in service since October 19, 1984. It also provided that the 10-year delimiting period during which chapter 30 benefits could be used would be reduced by the aggregate period the individual was not on active duty after December 31, 1976, and before October 19, 1984 [the ending date for the period subsequently was changed to June 30, 1985 by Public Law 102-568, 302(a)(3)]. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, in explaining the need for this 1986 legislation, offered the following comments: Following the enactment of Public Law 98-525, the Committee became aware that a group of individuals who, although on active duty on the date on which the new GI Bill was enacted, would not be eligible for these combined [chapter 34/30] benefits because prior to that date, they had left the service for some period of time. Since the purpose of these combined benefits was to permit individuals to remain on active duty and still utilize their earned [chapter 34] benefitsa provision that would permit these individuals to establish eligibility for the combined benefits [ ] was enacted in Public Law 99-145. The Committee is sympathetic to the need to make provision for this small group of individuals who had a break in service prior to the enactment of the New GI Bill, Nevertheless, it also believes that to provide the same nature and amount of relief from the 1989 termination date to these individuals as is provided to those who remained continuously on active duty during the period from December 31, 1976, through October 19, 1984, is not equitable. (Emphasis added.) S. Rep. No. 99-200, at 38 (1985). The next year, 1987, Congress renamed the act that created the New GI Bill as the Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 and made the program permanent. Pub. L. No. 100-48 (June 1, 1987). In the latter regard, it amended sections 1411(a)(1)(A) and 1412(a)(1)(A) of chapter 30 to delete references to the test period (during the period beginning on July 1, 1985, and ending on June 30, 1988,) and inserted language making the program applicable to individuals who first became or entered on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces after June 30, 1985. Id., 3(a) and (b). The stated purpose of this amendment was to make the chapter 30 program permanent by no longer restricting it to individuals whose initial period of active duty of 3 continuous years was begun before July 1, 1988. S. Rep. No. 100-13, at 3 (1987). Interestingly, in none of the legislative history supporting this enactment, whether discussing the programs operation, effectiveness, cost, or ongoing justification, did we discover any reference whatsoever to the chapter 34 conversion provisions or beneficiaries. Thus, we would infer that Congress, in making the program permanent, did not intend that such action have any consequent effect on the chapter 34/30 conversion privilege. In 1992, Congress enacted Public Law 102-568, section 302(a)(12) of which contains the last correction made by that body to the front-end service required for chapter 34/30 conversion eligibility. Congress noted that, in effect, the Public Law 99-576 amendment had retroactively terminated eligibility for individuals who, although not on active duty on October 19, 1984, did serve three years of continuous active duty service after June 30, 1985. H.R. Rep. No. 102-751, at 11 (1992). Consequently, it amended 38 U.S.C. 3011(a)(1)(B) to Restore MGIB eligibility for an individual who due to interrupted service, was not on active duty on October 19, 1984, but who had active duty service sometime during the period beginning on October 19, 1984, and ending on July 1, 1985, and continued on active duty without a break for the period required to establish entitlement under the MGIB. 138 Cong. Rec. H 11026 (1992) (Joint Explanatory Statement on H.R. 5008, 102nd Cong.), reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3694. (Note: in our view, the phrase without a break, as used in the context of the above-quoted explanation, was not meant in its term-of-art sense, but rather, as a substitute for without interruption.) In effect, therefore, Public Law 102-568 made a remedial amendment to the front-end service requirement in order to accommodate certain individuals who had been divested of their chapter 30 eligibility based on their having had a break in service before the programs effective date. The amendment reinstated their eligibility provided that they served on active duty at some time between, and including, the date the New GI Bill was enacted and the date it became effective. Of course, the affected individual then had to remain on active duty, without a break, until completing the back-end 3 years of continuous active duty required to earn chapter 30 entitlement. Nevertheless, the veteran here arguably could make a case that the language of that 1992 amendment (which remains the current language of 38 U.S.C. 3011(a)(1)(B)) challenges VAs interpretation that the required 3 years of continuous active duty must be counted from July 1, 1985. For instance, by delimiting to July 1, 1985, the front end period for which an individual at some time must have been and remained on active duty, the language can be read to imply that it is permissible to have an interruption, though not a break, in active service after June 30, 1985, prior to serving the 3 continuous years of active duty needed to earn chapter 30 entitlement. Although this seemingly does inject some ambiguity about Congress true intent in this matter, still, we have found nothing in the historical context or expressed legislative history that suggests Congress then was at all disposed to make any such significant change. Rather, the legislative history for the various amendments described above only reflects that Congress, to achieve its objectives (and out of a sense of fairness; see, S. Rep. No. 99-200, at 38 (1985)), made adjustments to the programs front-end eligibility requirements needed to accommodate various groups of persons with chapter 34 entitlement who otherwise would be denied the means of preserving that entitlement. Beyond this, we have found no legislative history that expresses Congress intent, following its original enactment of the chapter 30 program, to liberalize, to a date after June 30, 1988, the time available for such persons to perform the active duty service needed to establish entitlement. Although a statutory interpretation must have a reasonable basis, the interpretation chosen need not be the only possible one nor must it be the best choice as long as it has a reasonable basis. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1980). We believe VAs interpretation here rationally construes the language in question according to its terms, with due regard for the statutes objective, and consistent with the larger statutory program of which it is a part. Clearly, when viewed in the context of certain other provisions of chapter 30, VAs construction of the qualifying service required of chapter 34 converters is the most harmonious. For instance, section 3013(a) (1) of that chapter states that an individual entitled to basic educational assistance under chapter 30, based on serving the qualifying 3 years of continuous active duty, is entitled to a maximum of 36 months of such entitlement. Section 3013(a)(2), however, grants partial entitlement to an individual who, before completing that qualifying service, is discharged or released for certain reasons, e.g., service-connected disability, hardship, involuntarily for the convenience of the Government. The latter entitlement is computed at the rate of one month of such benefits for each month of continuous active duty served after June 30, 1985, as a part of the initial obligated period of active duty, in the case of a new recruit, or, in the case of a chapter 34 converter, served after June 30, 1985. In application, were VAs interpretation disregarded and, instead, the veterans position here followed, the provision for granting partial entitlement could produce clearly anomalous results. For example, if the veteran had been discharged for hardship after having served only 21 months of his 3-year period of active duty from November 28, 1986, to November 27, 1989, he, nevertheless, would be entitled, not to the partial 21 months of entitlement based on that service, but to a full 36 months of benefits. This is because his entitlement would be based also on his earlier 15-plus months of continuous active duty served after June 30, 1985. Such result would obtain even though the veterans initial period of service after June 30, 1985, by his own acknowledgment, was not qualifying service under section 3011(a)(1)(B) for purposes of earning chapter 30 entitlement. Thus, in this context, we believe section 3013(a)(2) operates as intended only when chapter 30 entitlement is credited based on serving the qualifying 3-year period of continuous active duty beginning on July 1, 1985. Another feature of chapter 30 allows for individuals who have served at least 2 years of qualifying active duty to receive benefits under that chapter while continuing to perform the service needed for full enrollment. As originally enacted, this so-called inservice-enrollment provision, 38 U.S.C. 1416 [now section 3016] applied only to new All-Volunteer Force participants, not to chapter 34 converters. However, Congress specifically corrected this in 1986 by extending the same inservice-enrollment opportunity to chapter 34 eligible persons who were seeking chapter 30 entitlement based on serving 2 years of active duty and 4 years of Selected Reserve service. Pub. L. No. 99-576 321(4) (1986). This technical correction allowed such persons, upon completing the requisite 2 years of active duty after June 30, 1985, to receive chapter 30 benefits while continuing to perform the duty described in section 1412 [now 3012] (a)(1)(B)(ii) (i.e., 4 continuous years in the Selected Reserve). Notably, however, Congress did not then, or after, further amend the inservice-enrollment provision so that it would apply, as well, to those chapter 34 eligible persons who were engaged in earning chapter 30 entitlement solely by serving 3 years of additional active duty, pursuant to section 1411(a)(1)(B) [now section 3011(a)(1)(B)]. This omission, particularly in the face of the mentioned 1986 focused technical correction, cannot reasonably be ascribed to mere oversight. Rather, the most plausible basis for such disparate treatment, it seems to us, is that Congress recognized inservice enrollment would have yielded no advantage and, therefore, had no relevant application to such excluded chapter 34/30 converters. Still, this explanation relies on the validity of VAs interpretation of the continuous service requirement. Accepting the premise (VAs interpretation) that the law required such chapter 34 eligible persons to begin serving the requisite additional 3 years of continuous active duty beginning on the effective date of the New GI Bill, July 1, 1985, those persons would have vested chapter 30 entitlement on June 30, 1988, prior to termination of the chapter 34 program on December 31, 1989. However, since no persons qualifying for chapter 30 benefits based on chapter 34 entitlement could be paid those benefits before January 1, 1990 (38 U.S.C. 3033(a)(2)), inservice enrollment would provide no benefit to persons who already had completed their 3 years of qualifying service before that date. (Note that the 1986 technical correction was of significant benefit to chapter 34/30 converters under the combined 2-by-4 program (section 3012). Those persons, having completed 2 continuous years of active duty during the period from July 1, 1985, to June 30, 1987, and then begun serving in the Selected Reserve, could begin using the new chapter 30 benefits on January 1, 1990, while continuing to perform the balance of the required 4 years of Selected Reserve service needed to fully vest chapter 30 entitlement.) In sum, after having reviewed the relevant law as a whole, its object and policy, we believe VAs interpretation of section 3011(a)(1)(B)(i), namely, that the 3 years of continuous active duty required for a person with chapter 34 eligibility to earn chapter 30 entitlement must be served from July 1, 1985, is reasonable and consistent with both the language and object of the pertinent statute. CONCLUSION: An individual having chapter 34 eligibility on December 31, 1989, must serve 3 continuous years on active duty after June 30, 1985, to become entitled to MGIB benefits under 38 U.S.C. 3011(a)(1)(B). Although an interruption of less than 90 days during that period would not constitute a break in service under 38 C.F.R. 21.7020(b)(5), it would violate the requirement that the individual have served 3 continuous years on active duty after June 30, 1985, since an interruption of any length (following a complete separation from service) would not meet the definition of continuous active duty under 38 C.F.R. 21.7020(b)(6). To qualify for MGIB entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 3011(a)(1)(B)(i), the individual must have served continuously on active duty from July 1, 1985, to June 30, 1988. Except as provided for certain cases of early out discharge covered under clause (ii) of that statute, the individual could not earn entitlement under chapter 30 on any other period of continuous active duty service. Leigh A. Bradley -.3EJbg%;rtuv8CEV W  -0!)/1:C%%%%s((o-y-11v333384Z455K889f9:: =.=@@xC{CCCCCSEVEEEJJCJH*OJQJ6CJOJQJ CJOJQJCJ5>*CJOJQJ5CJ<5CJ S-.DEab%&'<78DEV W    & F 0 & F Z Z-.DEab%&'<78DEV W   RS!!#$$$&&L(M(((**//227484Z4[4j5k51727                                    O  > RS!!#$$$&&L(M((( & F 8 & F(**//227484Z4[4j5k51727~::::>>@@GG & FZ  & F  & F 27~::::>>@@GG:L;LOO P PuRvROTPTrTsTeYfY[[\\1^2^``~ddLgMg"i#immiqjq\u]uxxf}g}~~~                                                        6J(L*L QQRSVV5]7]@]L]#e&eh"h~~%5CJOJQJ5>*CJOJQJ6CJOJQJCJH*OJQJ CJOJQJG:L;LOO P PuRvROTPTrTsTeYfY[[\\1^2^`h & F  & FZ Z & F  & F ``~ddLgMg"i#immiqjq\u]uxxf}g}~~~ & F   & FZ   & F  !"#%    !"#%h/ =!"#$% [4@4 NormalCJ_HmH sH tH <A@< Default Paragraph Font6B@6 Body TextCJOJQJ^J%J%CI (G`%DFGJKM27%EHLbfmnvnVo_oqqssvv'b'Preferred CustomerC:\My Documents\prc2-2001.docPreferred CustomerA:\prc2-2001.docPreferred CustomerA:\prc2-2001.docPreferred CustomerA:\prc2-2001.docPreferred CustomerMC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of prc2-2001.asdPreferred CustomerA:\prc2-2001.docPreferred CustomerA:\prc2-2001.doc VACOSokolSA:\prc2-2001.doc VACOSokolS3\\ogccobdc1\users\Ogcopins\Opins2001\prc02-2001.doc VACOSokolS3\\ogccobdc1\users\Ogcopins\Opins2001\prc02-2001.doc*9>:H@^`o(.0^`0o(() 0 ^ `0o(.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.:H*@T%p@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial"qh)R&)R&dh5$r0dQUESTION PRESENTED:Preferred Customer VACOSokolSOh+'0 $ @ L Xdlt|QUESTION PRESENTED:UESPreferred CustomerrefrefNormale VACOSokolSu2COMicrosoft Word 8.0@@\Qq@\Qqdh՜.+,D՜.+,X hp  Dell Computer CorporationD5 QUESTION PRESENTED: Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{A9325065-F2C8-11D4-B94F-006008CE5568}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVXYZ[\]^`abcdefiRoot Entry F$j )+qk1TableOWordDocumentSummaryInformation(WDocumentSummaryInformation8_CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q