Does being a Texas Rehabilitation Commission client disqualify a disabled veteran from the Hinson-Hazelwood college fee waiver?

Texas AG Opinion JM-388: Rehab Client College Fee Waiver

Plain-English summary

Texas has long offered a fee exemption at public colleges for certain veterans and their dependents, under what the opinion calls the Hinson-Hazelwood Act (section 54.203 of the Education Code). That exemption has a catch: it does not apply to a person who, at the time of registration, is already eligible for educational benefits under federal law. The Texas Rehabilitation Commission asked the Attorney General whether a disabled Texan loses the state fee exemption simply because he is a client of the commission, which runs a joint state-federal vocational rehabilitation program under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

The Attorney General said no. Being a rehabilitation client does not, by itself, make someone "eligible for educational benefits under federal legislation" in the sense the exemption's disqualifier targets. A rehabilitation client has no automatic right to have his college fees paid. The commission sets individual rehabilitation goals for each client and provides or helps arrange only the services needed to make the client employable. College training is just one possible service, and even then the federal act tells the commission to make "maximum efforts" to find other funding first, treating direct fee payment as a low priority. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

The AG grounded that reading in the history of the disqualifier. Its original version pointed to specific federal laws (Public Law 16 and the G.I. Bill) that gave veterans an absolute right to federal educational benefits. The point of the state exemption's carve-out was to steer those students to the federal tuition money so colleges could collect it, keeping federal dollars flowing to Texas. Funds under the Rehabilitation Act are different: a client has no guaranteed right to fee payment, the program is built to allocate resources efficiently, and money the commission "saves" by sending a client elsewhere is not lost to Texas but redirected to other clients or services. So the disqualifier did not fit rehabilitation clients. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985 and construed section 54.203 of the Texas Education Code (the Hinson-Hazelwood fee exemption) together with the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. ch. 16) as they then stood. Both the state exemption and the federal vocational rehabilitation statutes have since been amended and renumbered. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice, and verify current eligibility rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Does becoming a rehabilitation client cost a disabled veteran the state college fee exemption?

No. The Attorney General concluded a person is not automatically ineligible for the Hinson-Hazelwood Act fee exemption because of his status as a Texas Rehabilitation Commission client. That status alone is not the kind of federal educational-benefit eligibility that triggers the exemption's disqualifier. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

Doesn't the rehabilitation program pay for college, making the person "eligible" for federal benefits?

Not in a way that disqualifies him. A rehabilitation client has no automatic right to have college fees paid. The commission only funds college training when it is a necessary rehabilitation service, and the federal act directs it to make maximum efforts to find other funding first. That possibility is not a guaranteed federal educational benefit. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

Why does the disqualifier exist at all?

Historically, to protect federal tuition money. The exemption's carve-out originally pointed to laws like the G.I. Bill that gave veterans an absolute right to federal educational benefits, so that colleges would collect the federal tuition rather than waive fees and lose that money to the state. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

Background and statutory framework

The state exemption relieves certain veterans and dependents from paying fees at public colleges (Educ. Code §54.203), but by its terms the exemption does not apply to a person who at registration is eligible for educational benefits under federal legislation, and it does apply once the federal right is extinguished (Educ. Code §54.203(d)). The question was whether a Texas Rehabilitation Commission (TRC) client fell within that federal-benefits disqualifier. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

TRC administers a joint state-federal vocational rehabilitation program under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§701 through 751. The program requires an approved state plan (29 U.S.C. §721) and, for each client, an individualized written rehabilitation program (29 U.S.C. §722). The state must provide the services necessary to make a client employable (29 U.S.C. §723), but training at an institution of higher education may not be paid for with these funds unless maximum efforts have been made to secure grant assistance from other sources. The AG noted that a state fulfills its duty if it helps the client obtain such training under another program (Schornstein v. New Jersey Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, 519 F. Supp. 773 (D.N.J. 1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 824 (3rd Cir. 1982)). Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

On history, the disqualifier's original language (Acts 1945, 49th Leg., ch. 338) referred to Public Law 16 and Public Law 346 (the G.I. Bill), which gave an absolute right to federal educational benefits; the present language came from a nonsubstantive recodification (Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., ch. 1024). The AG reasoned that Rehabilitation Act funds are unlike G.I. Bill payments: a client has no right to fee payment, the act aims at efficient allocation and directs clients to other programs, and saved federal money stays available to Texas for other clients. So the exemption's disqualifier did not reach rehabilitation clients. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

Citations and references

• section 54.203 of the Texas Education Code (Hinson-Hazelwood College Student Loan Act); Educ. Code §54.203(d)
• 29 U.S.C. §§701 through 751; §721; §722; §723
• Acts 1945, 49th Leg., ch. 338; Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., ch. 1024
• Public Law No. 16, 78th Congress; Public Law No. 346, 78th Congress (G.I. Bill)
• Schornstein v. New Jersey Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, 519 F. Supp. 773 (D.N.J. 1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 824 (3rd Cir. 1982)
• Attorney General Opinion V-688 (1948)

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0388
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0388.pdf

Original opinion text

Transcribed from the scanned PDF by OCR. Character-level scanning errors have been cleaned; the wording, citations, and substance are reproduced as issued.

The Attorney General of Texas

December 2, 1985

Mr. Vernon M. Arrell
Commissioner
Texas Rehabilitation Commission
118 E. Riverside Drive
Austin, Texas 78704

Opinion No. JM-388

Re: Whether a client of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission is ineligible for benefits under the Hinson-Hazelwood Act, section 54.203 of the Texas Education Code

Dear Mr. Arrell:

You have requested an opinion on the following question:

Is a disabled Texan denied state educational benefits provided in Subsection (a) of the Hinson-Hazelwood College Student Loan Act (section 54.203 of the Education Code) solely because of the individual's status as a client of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended?

The Hinson-Hazelwood Act exempts certain veterans and their dependents from payment of fees at public institutions of higher education. Educ. Code §54.203. The exemption from payment of fees does not apply, however, to persons who are eligible for certain types of federal aid:

The exemption from fees provided for in Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a person if at the time of his registration he is eligible for educational benefits under federal legislation in effect at the time of his registration. A person is covered by the exemptions if his right to benefits under federal legislation is extinguished at the time of his registration. (Emphasis added).

Educ. Code §54.203(d).

You ask whether a veteran is ineligible for benefits under the Hinson-Hazelwood Act if he is a client of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission [hereinafter TRC]. Although the joint state-federal funds available to TRC under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 could possibly be used to pay fees at an institution of higher education for a client of TRC, we do not think that clients of TRC are within the scope of subsection (d) of section 54.203. Thus, in our opinion, a veteran is not ineligible for benefits under the Hinson-Hazelwood Act simply because of his status as a client of TRC.

TRC administers a joint state-federal vocational rehabilitation program pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its amendments. 29 U.S.C. §§701 through 751. To be eligible to receive federal funds under that act a state must submit a three-year plan to the federal office that administers the act. 29 U.S.C. §721. The plan must

contain the plans, policies, and methods to be followed in carrying out the State plan and in its administration and supervision, including a description of the method to be used to expand and improve services to handicapped individuals with the most severe handicaps and a description of the method to be used to utilize existing rehabilitation facilities to the maximum extent feasible; and, in the event that vocational rehabilitation services cannot be provided to all eligible handicapped individuals who apply for such services, show (1) the order to be followed in selecting individuals to whom vocational rehabilitation services will be provided, and (2) the outcomes and service goals, and the time within which they may be achieved, for the rehabilitation of such individuals, which order of selection for the provision of vocational rehabilitation services shall be determined on the basis of serving first those individuals with the most severe handicaps and shall be consistent with priorities in such order of selection so determined, and outcome and service goals for serving handicapped individuals, established in regulations prescribed by the Commissioner.

29 U.S.C. §721(a)(5)(A).

The act also provides that a counselor together with the handicapped person shall develop an "individualized written rehabilitation program" for each handicapped person eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. 29 U.S.C. §§721(a)(9), 722. The individualized program shall include:

(1) a statement of long-range rehabilitation goals for the individual and intermediate rehabilitation objectives related to the attainment of such goals, (2) a statement of the specific vocational rehabilitation services to be provided, (3) the projected date for the initiation and the anticipated duration of each such service, (4) objective criteria and an evaluation procedure and schedule for determining whether such objectives and goals are being achieved, and (5) where appropriate, a detailed explanation of the availability of a client assistance project established in such area pursuant to section 732 of this title. (Emphasis added).

29 U.S.C. §722(b).

The act requires the state to provide to a client any of the following services that are necessary to render the client employable:

(1) evaluation of rehabilitation potential, including diagnostic and related services, incidental to the determination of eligibility for, and the nature and scope of, services to be provided, including, where appropriate, examination by a physician skilled in the diagnosis and treatment of mental or emotional disorders, or by a licensed psychologist in accordance with State laws and regulations, or both;

(2) counseling, guidance, referral, and placement services for handicapped individuals, including follow-up, follow-along, and other post-employment services necessary to assist such individuals to maintain their employment and services designed to help handicapped individuals secure needed services from other agencies, where such services are not available under this chapter;

(3) vocational and other training services for handicapped individuals, which shall include personal and vocational adjustment, books, and other training materials, and services to the families of such individuals as are necessary to the adjustment or rehabilitation of such individuals:

Provided, that no training services in institutions of higher education shall be paid for with funds under this subchapter unless maximum efforts have been made to secure grant assistance, in whole or in part, from other sources to pay for such training. . . . (Emphasis added).

29 U.S.C. §723. See 29 U.S.C. §721(8) (requiring the states to provide the services set out in section 723(1) through (3)).

In summary, once TRC accepts a handicapped person as a client, individual rehabilitation goals are set for the client. TRC then provides services or assists the client in obtaining services necessary for the client to achieve those goals. Because training at an institution of higher education might be a necessary service for a particular client, TRC could use its funds to pay fees at an institution of higher education. Such payments, however, are a low-priority use of TRC's funds. Indeed, the federal act directs TRC to make "maximum efforts" to find other sources for payment of such fees. 29 U.S.C. §723(a)(3). Thus, even if a client of TRC needed training at an institution of higher education because of his individual rehabilitation plan, TRC would clearly have fulfilled its obligation to that client if it assisted him in obtaining such training under some other program. See Schornstein v. New Jersey Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, 519 F.Supp. 773 (D.N.J. 1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 824 (3rd Cir. 1982) (regarding entitlement to services under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).

We do not think that this possibility of payment of fees out of joint state-federal funds is the type of "eligibility" for federal educational benefits at which subsection (d) of the Hinson-Hazelwood Act was directed. The original language of that provision stated that the exemption from the payment of fees did not apply to persons eligible for educational benefits

under Public Law No. 16, 78th Congress, or amendments thereto, or under Public Law No. 346, 78th Congress [popularly known as the 'G.I. Bill'], or amendments thereto, or under any other Federal legislation. . . .

Acts 1945, 49th Leg., ch. 338, at 553. The present language of section 54.203(d) comes from the nonsubstantive recodification of the laws dealing with higher education. Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., ch. 1024, at 3118, 3319. The two pieces of federal legislation mentioned in the original version of section 54.203(d) both gave certain persons an absolute right to federal educational benefits. The purpose of exempting persons entitled to such educational benefits from the benefits of the Hinson-Hazelwood Act was to allow colleges to receive tuition payments from the federal government. See Attorney General Opinion V-688 (1948) (once a veteran has exhausted G.I. benefits, he is entitled to the benefits of the Hinson-Hazelwood Act). If the students who were otherwise entitled to federal tuition payments were exempt from such payments, the federal money would be lost to the state of Texas.

The federal funds the state of Texas receives under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are not analogous to funds paid by the federal government under the G.I. Bill or similar federal legislation. First, as we discussed above, a client of TRC has no right to payment of fees at an institution of higher education simply because of his status as a client. Also, one purpose of the federal Rehabilitation Act is to insure efficient allocation of resources. Therefore, the act directs TRC to assist its clients in finding benefits available under other programs. See 29 U.S.C. §§721(8) and 723(a)(3). Finally, federal money that TRC would "save" by directing its clients to other sources of rehabilitation services is not lost to the state of Texas. Rather, TRC could use that money to provide other services to the same client or to provide services to other clients.

In our opinion the exemption set out in subsection (d) of the Hinson-Hazelwood Act does not apply to someone simply because he is a client of TRC.

SUMMARY

A person is not automatically ineligible for benefits under the Hinson-Hazelwood Act, section 54.203 of the Texas Education Code, because of his status as a client of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Sarah Woelk