Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Comment Letter DoD MOU 9/30/2013

Comment Letter DoD MOU 9/30/2013

|Views: 66|Likes:
Published by Barmak Nassirian
DoD MOU DODI 1322.25 Comment Letter
DoD MOU DODI 1322.25 Comment Letter

More info:

Published by: Barmak Nassirian on Oct 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





September 30, 2013Ms. Jasmeet SeehraOffice of Management and BudgetDepartment of Defense Desk OfficerRoom 10102New Executive Office Building Washington, DC 20503
Re: Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense forPersonnel and ReadinessProposed Rule, Voluntary Education Programs (Aug. 14, 2013)Docket No. DOD
Dear Ms. Seehra: We write on behalf of the American Council on Education (
), the National Association of Collegeand University Business Officers (
), and the other higher education associations listed below toexpress our continued commitment to assisting service members, veterans, their spouses and their family members in pursuing a high-quality education. As we stated in our letter to Secretaries Duncan, Panettaand Shinseki and Director Cordray on June 22, 2012, we have a strong belief in the fundamental tenets of 
the “Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses
and Other Family 
(the “Principles”)
: Service members, veterans, their spouses and their family members should have the information, support and protections they deserve as they pursue theireducation. We continue to embrace the opportunity to work with the Department of Defense (
) toimprove the educational experiences
of our nation’s
service members and veterans. To that end, we write
to express our concern that DoD’s Proposed Rule
published in the
 Federal Register
on August 14, 2013,78 Fed. Reg. 49382,
Proposed Rule
contains amendments to the Voluntary Education Programsregulations and the DoD Voluntary Education Partnership
Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)
that would make it difficult for institutions of good intent to serve this population. As we highlighted in our June 22, 2012, letter, many associations and educational institutions havedeveloped initiatives and campus programs that are a testament to the commitment of the highereducation sector to fostering service member- and veteran-friendly campuses. Colleges and universitieshave developed and implemented best practices with respect to disclosures to and counseling for servicemembers and veterans as well as policies that recognize the particular circumstances of those individuals.For example, many campuses have created checklists to ensure that service members and veterans areaware of all the financial resources available to assist them; designated a specific person in the financialaid office as the point person for all military and veteran-specific education benefits, and developedspecial orientation programs, online and in person, to educate military and veteran students regardingresources and support available to them.
The attachment to this letter provides observations on aspects of the Proposed Rule that we believerequire DoD guidance or clarification in the final regulations and MOU. We have divided our commentsinto two categories: (A) comments on text of the MOU, and (B) comments on the proposed regulations.Thank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Molly Corbett Broad John WaldaPresident President and Chief Executive Officer American Council on Education National Association of College and University Business OfficersOn behalf of:
 American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers American Association of Community Colleges American Association of State Colleges and Universities American Council on Education Association of American Universities Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities Association of Public and Land-grant UniversitiesHispanic Association of Colleges and UniversitiesNational Association of College and University Business OfficersNational Association of Independent Colleges and UniversitiesNational Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
cc: Carolyn L. Baker
Chief, Voluntary Education ProgramsMilitary Community & Family Policy 
Comments on the August 14, 2013, Proposed Rule A.
Comments on Proposed Substantive Requirements1.
Return of 
Tuition Assistance (“TA”)
Funds After WithdrawalDOD MOU § 4(f)(2)
Administration of Tuition (78 Fed. Reg. 49397):
TA  will be limited to tuition and is refundable in accordance with the
institution’s tuition refund policy. Additionally, the following refund
 requirements must be met: (a) Must be 100 percent refundable up until thestart of the course.
(b) The institution’s policy for returning unearned TA 
funds for Service members who stop attending due to Military serviceobligations must be aligned with provisions in section 484B of Title IV of theHigher Education Act of 1965, and the Department of Education regulations
set out at 34 CFR 668.22. (c) The institution’s policy for returning unearned
TA funds for Service members who withdraw prior to the course completionmust be aligned with provisions in section 484B of Title IV of the HigherEducation Act of 1965, and with Department of Education regulations set outat 34 CFR 668.22.
Under Principle of Excellence (f), an educational institution that participates in the DoD TA Program
must “agree to an institutional refund policy that is aligned with the refund of unearned student aid rules
applicable to Federal student aid provided through the Department of Education under Title IV of theHigher Education Act of 1965, as required under section 484B of that Act when students withdraw prior
to course completion.” The U.S. Department of Education’s (“ED’s”) regulation regarding the return of Title IV funds is commonly referred to as “R2T4.”
 While Principle (f) speaks to
with R2T4requirements, it does not compel wholesale adoption of those requirements for TA Program funds. Inaddition, simply grafting R2T4 rules onto the TA Program is impracticable and will not provide desiredprotections for service members and other TA-eligible persons. Below we explain our concerns and offerthoughts on an approach.
R2T4 regulations were not designed to apply to return of all types of federalfunds.
The R2T4 regulations in 34 C.F.R. § 668.22 were designed solely to address particular matters that arise with respect to Title IV funds and the process for return of such funds to ED. The regulations were notdesigned to apply to all types of federal funds. The regulations are substantively and procedurally complex, with more than 200 pages of ED guidance on how to determine the date on which a student withdraws officially or unofficially from an institution, how to calculate the amount of money that must bereturned to ED, the specific Title IV programs to which funds must be returned and in what order, and thetiming of all decisions and actions. ED has developed worksheets and software to facilitate institutionalcompliance with the required calculation, which has multiple components. Within the rules established by ED, an institution has some discretion with respect to the R2T4 calculation, particularly in terms of thedate to use as the withdrawal date when a student withdraws unofficially from an institution.
 Federal Student Aid Handbook
explains that the R2T4 rules do not dictate an institutional refundpolicy and do not forbid an institution from developing its own refund policy. See 2012-2013
 Federal  Student Aid Handbook
, 5-3. As a result, many institutions have a policy that addresses return of unearnedTitle IV funds to ED and a separate policy that addresses institutional refunds of tuition and fees to

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->