Request By:
Mr. Daniel C. Seaver
Chairman
The Kentucky Association of
Veterans' Affairs Coordinators
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40506
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; Robert L. Chenoweth, Assistant Attorney General
As the Chairman of the Kentucky Association of Veterans' Affairs Coordinators (KAVAC), you have asked the Office of the Attorney General for advice regarding several problems identified in the administration of the Kentucky War Orphan Program statutes, KRS 164.505 and 164.515. You noted in your letter that the issue of who is eligible for exemption from paying any matriculation or tuition fee at a state supported university, junior college or vocational training institution is not the primary problem. Problems you are concerned about occur after an individual has been determined eligible for the tuition exemption.
You stated in your letter that KAVAC has found there to be little uniformity throughout the state in the complying with KRS 164.505 and 164.515. You indicated this problem exists due to the lack of rules or regulations regarding the enforcement of these two statutory provisions. You suggested that from this problem other problems are manifested. You gave as examples that a student eligible for benefits under KRS 164.515 but able to take only a single course per semester has the 36 months entitlement reduced by approximately four months (a semester) the same as would an individual who took a full-time academic load for the semester. Students in the part-time situation have asked for a prorationing against entitlement, that is a one month rather than four month reduction. Some institutions do prorate and others refuse to do so on the basis that no system of proration is referred to in the statute.
Another problem suggested by you was how an institution should respond to a student who has been enrolled for a couple of years and then receives his certificate of eligibility. The question exists as to whether the student is entitled to a full refund of tuition retroactively. You stated the institutions of higher education have been acting as they saw fit regarding such a matter.
Yet another problem mentioned by you is the continued confusion and misapplication of the provisions of KRS 164.505 with those of KRS 164.515. You stated that although KRS 164.505 does not refer to a time limitation on its use, a few institutions have interpreted the statute to mean that while there is no age limittion, its provisions may only be used for one degree or 36 months, whichever occurs first.
You stated that all of the above problems are magnified when students transfer from one state institution to another. Basically, by you, KAVAC is asking the Office of the Attorney General to develop a uniform policy of enforcement of KRS 164.505 and 164.515. As much as we might desire to do so, it is not a legitimate prerogative of this office to establish policies or regulations which implement statutory provisions other than those applying to our office. We do, however, desire to address the problems raised by you, but before doing so, we suggest that this entire matter be taken up with the Council on Higher Education, which we believe has the authority under KRS 164.020(3) to act to alleviate these problems. We are mailing a copy of this opinion to the Council.
As concerns the proration problem, we find nothing in the law to support such a policy. In fact, this office has concluded in an earlier opinion that "periods in which an individual is actually enrolled or to be included in the computation of the 36 months and that all such periods - including summer school - are to be included in such computation. " OAG 67-189, copy attached. As a usual case, a student only takes a couple of courses in a summer session but nonetheless would be reducing his total months eligibility.
Your second problem involves a tuition refund issue. We agree with you that if a student was eligible for a waiver of tuition at the time school began but had not requested a certificate of entitlement, the student would only be entitled to the tuition waiver after receipt of the certificate of entitlement. However, in the case of a student who had timely requested his certificate of entitlement but had not received it in time to be exempted from paying tuition, the student would be entitled to a refund upon subsequent receipt of the certificate. See OAG 70-661 and OAG 77-737, copies attached.
The last problem involves the wrongful application of KRS 164.515 limitations on benefits to KRS 164.505 situations. There are no such limitations explicitly stated in the law and none to be implicitly read into the law. Again, note OAG 77-737, supra.