Over 1 Million Veterans ‘Missing Out on Benefits They’re Entitled To’
—
More than 1 million U.S. veterans may be missing out on benefits they are legally entitled to, an attorney involved in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has told Newsweek.
Newsweek contacted the VA for comment via email outside regular working hours.
Why It Matters
A 2024 Supreme Court decision said veterans who separately qualify under both major GI Bill programs, a federal benefit that helps pay for college or job training, may use both benefits up to a 48‑month cap. However, the plaintiffs say the VA’s rules still block that outcome for many veterans.
“Many of them feel like the VA is pulling the rug out from underneath them after they already paid with their service,” attorney Luke A. Schamel, who is representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) in this case pro bono, told Newsweek.
“Veterans who served continuously for decades are receiving fewer benefits than people who served for only a handful of years,” he continued, “and that just doesn’t make any sense.”
What To Know
A coalition of veterans’ organizations is challenging VA rules that, plaintiffs contend, continue to deny veterans full education benefits despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough.
The petitioners include the Commonwealth of Virginia, the VFW, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and several individual veterans and family members, according to the filing.
Schamel, an associate at Yetter Coleman LLP, said the VA’s own estimates showed that about 1.2 million veterans are affected by the disputed “break in service” rule, making this a systemic issue rather than a niche legal fight.
“The VA’s benefits process can already be a bit Byzantine. … Many of them feel like they’re not receiving the benefits that they were promised,” he said.
The dispute centers on how the VA applies a 48‑month combined cap across two programs: the Montgomery GI Bill (which provides up to 36 months of education benefits) and the Post‑9/11 GI Bill (also up to 36 months), with an overall limit of 48 months across programs.
Veterans planned their education and family futures around these benefits and are now being told they don’t qualify, with real consequences for schooling, retraining and reentering civilian life, Schamel said.
“This becomes an inflection point. If veterans have to delay school by a year or two, that can change whether they ever go at all,” he continued.
“They can’t just wait around,” Schamel added. “These aren’t 18‑year‑olds. They often have families, and this completely changes outcomes for them.”
The Supreme Court’s Rudisill v. McDonough Ruling
Plaintiffs argue the VA is focusing on periods of service instead of years served, meaning veterans who served continuously for decades can receive fewer benefits than those with shorter, interrupted service.
The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Rudisill v. McDonough held that veterans who separately accrue benefits under both GI Bills are entitled to both benefits, and that the key question turns on “lengthy service,” not whether service was divided into separate “periods of service,” the petitioners said.
The lawsuit argues the VA nonetheless imposed a break‑in‑service requirement through the Veterans Benefits Administration’s claims manual, effectively requiring veterans to have separate service periods divided by a break to receive the full 48 months.
Schamel said the VA’s approach continues to focus on “the number of distinct periods of service that a veteran has, rather than the number of years,” which he argued leads to outcomes that “don’t make any sense.”
Under that interpretation, he said, veterans who served continuously for decades can receive fewer education benefits than those who served for a shorter time but had a break in service.
In the brief, petitioners also describe how the rule plays out in practice.
It cites examples of individual veterans, including veterans with decades of service—such as Kenneth Bratland (more than 34 years) and Toby Doran (more than 27 years)—who were denied the full 48 months under the VA’s rules because their service was continuous.
By contrast, the petitioners argue that an otherwise similar veteran with two separate qualifying stints could receive the additional months despite having served fewer total years.
Schamel added that this framing can be especially confusing to veterans because eligibility is often described in straightforward terms—two or three years for Montgomery benefits and three years for Post‑9/11 benefits—so veterans who served six years or more may assume they can access both programs up to the combined cap.
“A lot of them are confused, and many of them feel like they’re not being treated fairly,” he said.
If the rule is struck down, the lawyer says the VA will have to stop denying claims immediately, opening the door for veterans currently applying—and potentially many more.
The lawsuit further challenges the VA’s handling of past denials, saying the agency failed to consider reimbursing veterans and families who paid education costs out of pocket, despite having the authority to do so.
Petitioners also argue that the VA extended benefit‑use deadlines for veterans and spouses but not for dependent children, raising the risk that some could age out before accessing restored benefits.
Beyond this case, Schamel said thousands of individual appeals are still working their way through the system, alongside several related lawsuits challenging similar denials.
What Happens Next
The Federal Circuit is set to decide whether to vacate the VA’s disputed break‑in‑service rule, which plaintiffs argue continues to limit veterans’ GI Bill benefits.
Schamel said a favorable ruling would force the agency to change course. “The VA will be forced to stop denying benefits based on that break-in-service requirement,” while an adverse decision would likely be appealed.
“Sometimes all you need to do is shake the tree in government to get them to pay attention,” he said, adding, “I think we’re shaking it pretty hard right now.”
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it’s not “both sides,” it’s sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
