I am a 100%, service connected, permanent and totally disabled veteran of Desert Storm. I have a step-daughter who is attending college and receiving Chapter 35 Dependants Educational Assistance. Her father is legally obligated to pay 1/2 of her college expenses. This obligation comes from his divorce decree, which he agreed to when he was divorced from my wife.

He decided that he didn't want to pay these expenses so my wife started contempt proceedings against him. We had a final hearing on the matter and his lawyer argued that he should be given credit for 50% of the money my step-daughter is receiving through Chapter 35. I feel this is my benefit given to her on my behalf. These benefits are only available to the spouse or dependants of those who are missing in action, killed in action, prisoners of war or veterans who are rated 100% permanently and totally disabled by a service connected disability. Step-children are now considered dependants under the U.S. code.


U.S. Code, Title 38 Chapter 35 section 3500 states:
The Congress hereby declares that the educational program
established by this chapter is for the purpose of providing
opportunities for education to children whose education would otherwise
be impeded or interrupted by reason of the disability or death of a
parent from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the Armed
Forces after the beginning of the Spanish-American War, and for the
purpose of aiding such children in attaining the educational status
which they might normally have aspired to and obtained but for the
disability or death of such parent.....

Further down in Title 38, Chapter 53 section 5301, it talks about the "Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits" but this section does not address my situation. Maybe this section could be amended to include protection from civil actions such as the one I'm involved in.

I believe the judge is giving my benefit away by allowing my wife's ex to receive credit for this benefit. In other words, he's allowing the ex to profit from my service connected disability. I don't think something like this was even considered when this code was written.

I think I, and tomorrows veterans, deserve protection from this happening. All they would have to do is incorporate language into this chapter to prevent judges from allowing non-veterans to profit off the backs of disabled veterans. This would require no extra funds from the U.S. government. It would just preserve the benefits for those that have earned them.

With all of the casualties from the current conflicts I can see this coming up again now that a precedent has been set by this idiot judge. This happened in Gwinnett County, Georgia.

ckshep59,
Would you be willing to share the "case" information / decision with us so we can look further into this? This sort of injustice needs corrected ASAP. If so please let us know by emailing us at kidwell18@comcast.net.

Russ