November 3, 2025
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Education Service
810 Vermont Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20420
via electronic submission
Re: State Approving Agency Jurisdiction Rule, RIN 2900-AQ89
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) proposed rule regarding State Approving Agency (SAA) jurisdiction.[1] Veterans Education Success is a nonprofit organization that works on a bipartisan basis to advance higher education success for veterans, service members, and military families, and to protect the integrity and promise of the GI Bill® and other federal postsecondary education programs. We also provide free counseling and legal assistance to students using their GI Bill and military benefits.
Sometimes even well-intentioned policies have egregious unintended effects, as VBA’s proposed change would. In this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), VBA seeks to amend its definitions of the terms “independent study,” “distance learning,” and “resident learning,” and to establish a new term, “standard curriculum.” It is essential to examine the impact of removing the protections of 38 U.S.C. 3680A from online programs: opening the GI Bill to unaccredited online programs and those that do not lead to a degree. In short, VA’s proposal rewrites these foundational definitions in a way that opens up the GI Bill to online non-degree programs, a hazardous proposition to individual veterans and the long-term success of the overall program.
VBA’s proposed change will eliminate the current independent study barrier to unaccredited online programs to get GI Bill. VBA intends to leave it up to the State approving agencies (SAA) to approve or disapprove these programs, but SAA leadership has vociferously told VBA staff that this change would open the floodgates to low-quality online programs. VBA further confirmed it would not provide support to the SAAs when they get sued by a school over being denied over “low quality.”
This would be a highly consequential change, and the end result will be a massive influx of embarrassing, low-quality programs eligible for GI Bill. VA has been embarrassed by past news stories about ridiculous programs approved for GI Bill, such as “The GI Bill Pays for 2,000 Unaccredited Sex, Bible, and Massage Schools.”[2] This new change will open the floodgates to more embarrassments for VA.
The ineffective rules governing the GI Bill program approval process speak for themselves. For more than a decade, weak standards, which are often underenforced, along with fragmented oversight, have allowed bad actors to exploit veterans and waste taxpayer dollars. Some of the largest recipients of GI Bill funds have produced some of the worst outcomes. Many of these programs spend minimal GI Bill dollars on actual classroom instruction, and veterans report being told to watch free YouTube videos for their instruction.[3], [4] Countless schools approved for the GI Bill have faced investigations for deceptive advertising and fraud. Veterans who attended schools such as FastTrain College,[5] Retail Ready Career Center,[6] Blue Star Learning,[7] House of Prayer,[8], [9] American InterContinental University,[10], [11] Colorado Technical University,[12], [13] and The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality[14] have often been left with worthless credits and no pathway for benefits restoration.
That history demonstrates why the current statutory framework and safeguards must be reinforced, not drastically undermined, as VA effectively proposes. Current rules under the existing independent study standards remain one of the few protections that keep fraudulent operators out of the system. VA’s proposed changes would remove one of the few meaningful safeguards and open the door for a new wave of scams. Without this barrier, fake programs promising fast money, unverified credentials, or short-term “certifications” will inevitably flood the GI Bill approval process under the newly created loophole. The result would not be “innovation” and “opportunity” as VA has implied. It would be an open invitation for exploitation and a setback for veterans and the overall GI Bill program for years to come.
VA Should Work with Congress, Not Expand Its Own Authority
The justification for this SNPRM, at least in part, appears to be a previous comment our organization made on the predecessor Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2021.[15], [16] However, we remind VA that our comments indicated that the solution is to work with Congress to update the existing statutory framework and definitions, not for VA to address this issue unilaterally.
VA’s expertise lies in the disbursement and management of veterans’ benefits, not in higher education policy or substantive quality assurance of educational services. This underscores the importance of deference to Congress on “major questions” of quality control and program design for the GI Bill. In addition, any regulatory discretion VA may be legally authorized to exercise should, to the maximum degree practicable, comport with educational policies devised by the Department of Education as the agency of primary jurisdiction on higher education. As we wrote in our prior comment:
“…we strongly suggest that VA work with Congress to determine whether the continued use of independent study is the appropriate framework to regulate online education, as the terminology is antiquated and has caused confusion. Modernizing the statute and regulations would address these concerns and also improve the oversight of distance education programs. Specifically, we believe that as an alternative delivery mode to in-person instruction, proper distance education programs must include regular and substantive interactions with qualified faculty.”[17]
Congress set forth the requirements for an Independent Study program in 38 U.S.C. § 3680A(a), which has long been understood to include online programs.[18] 38 U.S.C. § 3680A(a) provides[19]:
“The Secretary shall not approve the enrollment of an eligible veteran in any of the following:
…
(4) Any independent study program except an independent study program (including such a program taken over open circuit television) that—
(A) is accredited by an accrediting agency or association recognized by the Secretary of Education under subpart 2 of part H of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b);
(B) leads to—
(i) a standard college degree;
(ii) a certificate that reflects educational attainment offered by an institution of higher learning; or
(iii) a certificate that reflects completion of a course of study offered by [an area career and technical school or a postsecondary vocational institution]…; and
(C) in the case of a program described in subparagraph (B)(iii)–provides training aligned with the requirements of employers….
The statute expressly provides that programs offered over open-circuit television fall within the definition of independent study and must be accredited and lead to a degree or certificate to be eligible for GI Bill funds. Open-circuit television was the technological precursor to online programs.
In the 2021 NPRM,[20] VA additionally explained the longstanding status quo of interpreting independent study to also include online programs:
“VA views online distance learning as a subset of courses offered through independent study and, therefore, views current § 21.4250(a)(3) as controlling which SAA has jurisdiction to approve a course offered via online distance learning…
The relationship between independent study and online distance learning is further clarified in 38 CFR 21.4267(b).[21] VA defines independent study in that section for the purposes of educational assistance programs as a program that ‘consists of a prescribed program of study with provision for interaction between the student and [instructor] . . . through use of communications technology, including . . . videoconferencing, computer technology (to include electronic mail), and other electronic means’ and is ‘offered without any regularly scheduled, conventional classroom or laboratory sessions.’ 38 CFR 21.4267(b)(1)(i) and (ii). The definition provided for independent study encompasses distance learning in VA’s view, which includes courses offered online. Therefore, online distance learning is currently classified as independent study for the purposes of VA educational assistance programs. Consequently, when current § 21.4250(a)(3) states that the SAA for the State where the educational institution’s main campus is located is the SAA of jurisdiction for the approval of independent study program, it is likewise stating that such SAA is the SAA of jurisdiction for the approval of online distance learning programs.[22]
VA’s 2021 proposed rule explicitly and at length reaffirmed that it would adhere to the statutory framework and review online program applications within the “independent study” framework, and assured the public that no substantive definitional changes would be made. VA stated that the amendment “would not substantively change the current definitions,” but would instead “maintain the status quo.”[23] Indeed, the proposed amendment served narrowly, only to clarify which SAA holds jurisdiction.
In sharp contrast, this SNPRM proposes sweeping definitional changes that directly contradict both the letter and intent of the earlier notice. These revisions are not a minor clarification, but a fundamental reinterpretation of statutory terms with significant policy implications. Such consequential changes must be decided by Congress, not by rulemaking. We also would remind VBA of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022) reserving “major questions” to Congress and reminding agencies that they may not make decisions of “vast economic and political significance” without clear authorization from Congress. The authority to alter eligibility for entire categories of schools—and therefore access to billions in federal benefits—rests squarely with Congress under 38 U.S.C. § 3680A.
VA’s Proposed Change to SAA Jurisdiction Would Undermine, Rather than Strengthen, State Accountability
The proposed amendment to § 21.4250(a)(3) would confirm that the SAA for the school’s main campus approves programs offered by independent study, by correspondence, or solely through distance learning, rather than in the state where the veteran resides. This change would significantly undermine the state-based accountability framework Congress deliberately established.
If adopted, these changes would upend the longstanding oversight structure for non-college degree programs. SAAs are neither structured nor resourced to evaluate distance-learning programs of this nature. Of importance, many of the programs that would fall under this redefinition may not meet required clock-hour standards or comparable measures of instructional time, raising substantial concerns about quality, accountability, and the proper use of veterans’ educational benefits that SAAs are not prepared to address.
Congress determines the authority for SAAs under 38 U.S.C. § 3671(a),[24] which requests that each state’s governor create or designate a state department or agency to approve programs for veterans’ education benefits.
The existing structure ensures that oversight reflects state law and local conditions. In one example, VA overrode that framework, assuming approval authority from California’s SAA to approve the Arizona-based Ashford University. Subsequently, veterans in states such as Illinois lost the protection of their own education and consumer regulators.[25] The result was predictable: veterans were left with limited recourse as complaints about misleading recruitment and substandard instruction mounted.
SAAs exist to ensure that educational programs meet the consumer protection, licensure, and workforce standards of their own states. An SAA in Arizona cannot credibly evaluate programs serving veterans in Illinois, where licensing laws, consumer protections, and workforce needs differ.
We also would point you to the VA Inspector General’s reminder that the VBA Education Service maintains primary responsibility to safeguard GI Bill funds. In a December 2018 report, VA OIG criticized VA’s oversight of SAAs.[26] The OIG concluded that VA would waste an estimated $2.3 billion in improper GI Bill payments to schools over 5 years if it did not implement the report’s recommendations.
The OIG attributed the oversight weaknesses identified during the audit to VA’s position that it lacked approval and disapproval authority for GI Bill programs and was prohibited from supervising or controlling SAAs. For example, VA stated that: “According to VA OGC [Office of General Counsel], SAAs have nearly exclusive authority to approve, suspend, or withdraw programs for the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, not the VA, and this SAA authority is largely unchallengeable. VA holds certain approval authorities as well, but mostly in the context of when acting in the role of the SAA (i.e., in situations where the state has no SAA). Therefore, SAAs hold the authority and VA fully expects them to do the job according to the terms of the contract….”[27]
The OIG disagreed with the statement that SAAs are primarily responsible for approvals and are given this authority nearly exclusively under the law: “The provisions of 38 CFR § 21.4152, Control by agencies of the United States, prohibits VA from supervising or controlling the SAAs, but also specifically states that VA retains the right to determine whether the SAAs are complying with Title 38. Furthermore, 38 U.S.C. § 3679, Disapproval of courses, also allows VA to approve or disapprove schools, courses, or licensing or certification tests and does not include any limitations stating VA can only exercise this authority when acting in the role of an SAA. The OIG also noted that the statement about the nearly exclusive authority of the SAAs, except in cases where the state does not have an SAA, “directly contradicts prior VBA actions….”[28]
The OIG also concluded that, under Office of Management and Budget guidance and the Financial Integrity Act, VA is “ultimately responsible” for safeguarding federal assets and preventing waste, fraud, and mismanagement.
We also refer VA to the much more robust policy adopted by the Department of Education, which clearly addresses the issue by subjecting state authorization and program approval processes to the states where the student is located.[29]
VA should retain jurisdiction with the SAA in the state where the veteran resides. This honors the federal–state partnership established by Congress for the GI Bill, maintains local accountability, and ensures that veterans remain protected under their own state’s standards.
VA Should Focus Its Regulatory Efforts on Clarifying § 3676 Program Standards
Instead of addressing the current slate of terms outlined in the SNPRM, we strongly encourage VA to strengthen the existing regulations on Program Approval. We believe VA has the authority to clarify the program approval requirements in 38 U.S.C. § 3676 (regulation § 21.4254) using regulatory action.
While only Congress can strengthen program approval in 38 U.S.C. § 3672 and 3675, VA has the authority to clarify the currently undefined terms in 38 U.S.C. § 3676 (approval of nonaccredited courses). Clarification is needed because clearly predatory institutions such as Retail Ready and FastTrain College secured approval for GI Bill benefits only to later be subject to law enforcement actions for defrauding veterans.[30] We urge VA to clarify some of these terms through regulation, including:
- The definition of “quality” in (c)(1) should incorporate clear student outcome metrics that ED already requires schools to report, such as student graduation, debt, default, and licensure pass rates; the percent of tuition dedicated to instruction; and earnings after leaving school. If the majority of a school’s graduates do not earn more than a high school graduate, the school did not provide sufficient return on investment;[31]
- Teacher Qualifications. The definition of teacher qualifications in (c)(4) should be clarified to ensure that programs employ teachers who have the appropriate advanced degree in the area they are teaching (such as a law degree if teaching law or a PhD or MA if teaching the humanities). Teachers of certificate programs should have relevant field experience, and teachers in licensed occupations (such as nursing) must hold a valid license;
- Financially Sound. The definition of “financially sound” in (c)(9) should be defined in reference to ED standards;
- Deceptive Advertising. The ban on deceptive advertising in (c)(10) should be clarified to prohibit the participation of any school that has faced legal or regulatory concerns over its advertising in the prior 5 years; and;
- Good Character. The definition of “good character” in (c)(12) should be clarified to ban administrators and teachers who have faced legal or regulatory action or any action from a licensing board.
The Proposed Changes Would Weaken Oversight and Harm Veterans
Expanding eligibility without clearly articulated and enforceable safeguards would place veterans at risk. VA states that the proposal would open NCD distance programs “without diminishing safeguards,” yet it does not identify which safeguards apply, how they would be enforced, or the resources that would support SAA oversight. In practice, SAAs would face high volumes of applications, interstate enrollment complications, and litigation exposure without clear, uniformly applied standards.
Approving unaccredited online NCD programs before defining and enforcing appropriate safeguards – such as the requirements for curricula, faculty, facilities, fiscal and administrative practices, admissions and recruitment policies, records management practices, and complaint-resolution policies – invites waste and harm.
We therefore urge VA to refrain from redefining modalities and instead prioritize rulemaking to define and apply the § 3676 standards. We further urge VA to issue guidance addressing interstate consumer protection and present a credible enforcement plan with measurable outcomes and timelines.
If VA nonetheless intends to proceed, it must at a minimum, issue a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that fully discloses the scope of these definitional changes and allows the public to comment on them as a separate, substantive rulemaking.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. Please reach out if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
William Hubbard
Vice President for Veterans & Military Policy
[1] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “State Approving Agency Jurisdiction Rule,” Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 90 Fed. Reg. 42552 (Sept. 3, 2025), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/03/2025-16836/state-approving-agency-jurisdiction-rule.
[2] Glantz, Aaron, “GI Bill pays for unaccredited sex, Bible and massage schools” (Jul. 15, 2015), https://revealnews.org/article/gi-bill-pays-for-unaccredited-sex-bible-and-massage-schools/.
[3] Veterans Education Success, “Student Veteran Submission: Matthew C. Testimony to the Department of Education, (Mar. 31, 2024). https://vetsedsuccess.org/student-veteran-submission-matthew-c-testimony-to-the-department-of-education-march-2024/.
[4] Veterans Education Success, “Student Veteran Submission: Adam Young Testimony to the Department of Education, (Jan. 12, 2024). https://vetsedsuccess.org/student-veteran-submission-adam-young-testimony-to-the-department-of-education-january-2024/.
[5] Carli Teproff, Now defunct for-profit college must pay the government $20 million, a court rules, Miami Herald (Feb. 21, 2017), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article134161714.html.
[6] U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, For-Profit Trade School Owner Charged with Defrauding VA, Student Veterans (Nov. 23, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/profit-trade-school-owner-charged-defrauding-va-student-veterans.
[7] U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, Owner of Local Technical Training School Sentenced for Defrauding the VA out of almost $30 Million in G.I. Bill Education Benefits (Oct. 27, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/owner-local-technical-training-school-sentenced-defrauding-va-out-almost-30-million-gi.
[8] United States of America v. $115,800.00 in U.S. Currency Funds, (Jan. 6, 2023), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/House-of-Prayer-Bible-Seminary.pdf.
[9] Veterans Education Success, Our Letter to VA and Georgia SAA Regarding House of Prayer Christian Church (Aug. 2020), https://vetsedsuccess.org/letter-to-va-and-georgia-saa-regarding-house-of-prayer-christian-church/.
[10] Veterans Education Success, Summary of Veteran and Servicemember Student Complaints about American InterContinental University (Feb. 12, 2020), https://vetsedsuccess.org/summary-of-veteran-and-servicemember-student-complaints-about-american-intercontinental-university/.
[11] Veterans Education Success, Our Letter to American InterContinental University System’s Accreditor (Apr. 12, 2024), https://vetsedsuccess.org/our-letter-to-american-intercontinental-university-systems-accreditor/.
[12] Veterans Education Success, Colorado Technical University, American InterContinental University, & Trident University – Recent Actions and Concerns (Feb. 8, 2021), https://vetsedsuccess.org/colorado-technical-university-american-intercontinental-university-trident-university-recent-actions-and-concerns/.
[13] Veterans Education Success, Letter to the Education Department Re: Colorado Tech U and American InterContinental U (Mar. 24, 2021), https://vetsedsuccess.org/letter-to-the-education-department-re-colorado-tech-u-and-american-intercontinental-u/.
[14] Glantz, “GI Bill pays for unaccredited sex, Bible and massage schools.”
[15] Veterans Education Success, Federal Register Comment on VA’s Proposed Rule Regarding State Approving Agency Jurisdiction (RIN 2900-AQ89) (Dec. 13, 2021), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Federal-Register-Comment_VA_SAAs_VES.pdf.
[16] Department of Veterans Affairs. State Approving Agency Jurisdiction Rule (Proposed rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 57094) (Doc. No. 2021-21496). (Oct. 14, 2021). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/14/2021-21496/state-approving-agency-jurisdiction-rule.
[17] See note 1.
[18] See also 38 U.S.C. § 3523(a)(4) (Dependents’ Educational Assistance funds may not be used for an independent study program (including open circuit television) unless it is an accredited program leading to a standard college degree) and 38 U.S.C. § 3676(e) (prohibiting unaccredited course of education in whole or in part by independent study).
[19] U.S. Code § 3680A (2025). ‘‘Disapproval of enrollment in certain courses.” In Title 38—Veterans’ Benefits—Part III—Readjustment and Related Benefits—Chapter 36—Administration of Educational Benefits—Subchapter III—Miscellaneous Provisions. Retrieved from https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title38-section3680A&num=0&edition=prelim.
[20] See note 2.
[21] Department of Veterans Affairs. (Sept. 29, 2025). 38 C.F.R. § 21.4267 — Approval of independent study. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/part-21/section-21.4267.
[22] Id. 86 Fed. Reg. 57095 (Oct. 14, 2021).
[23] State Approving Agency Jurisdiction Rule, 86 FR 57904, 579 oversight aligns with05 (emphasis added).
[24] Congress formalized the SAA framework through the Veterans’ Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-358), which amended Title 38 to establish cooperative federal–state administration of veterans’ education benefits. The legislative history emphasizes that states would serve as the “approving authorities” for educational programs to ensure oversight consistent with state laws and standards.
[25] Ochinko, Walter. “VA and SAA Approval and Disapproval Authority Should Be Clarified,” (Sept. 2019), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/va-and-saa-approval-and-disapproval-authority-should-be-clarified.pdf.
[26] VA’s Oversight of State Approving Agency Program Monitoring for Post-9/11 GI Bill Students, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General (Dec. 3, 2018), https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-16-00862-179.pdf.
[27] Ochinko, VA and SAA Approval and Disapproval Authority Should Be Clarified.
[28] Ochinko, VA and SAA Approval and Disapproval Authority Should Be Clarified.
[29] See 34 CFR 600.9 and 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32).
[30] Carli Teproff, Now defunct for-profit college must pay the government $20 million, a court rules, Miami Herald (Feb. 21, 2017), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article134161714.html; Department of Justice Press Release, For-Profit Trade School Owner Charged with Defrauding VA, Student Veterans (Nov. 23, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/profit-trade-school-owner-charged-defrauding-va-student-veterans.
[31] See Veterans Education Success, Should College Spend the GI Bill on Veterans’ Education or Late Night TV Ads? April 2019, https://vetsedsuccess.org/should-colleges-spend-the-gi-bill-on-veterans-education-or-late-night-tv-ads-and-which-colleges-offer-the-best-instructional-bang-for-the-gi-bill-buck/.
RIN-2900-AQ89_VES-Comment_SAA-Jurisdiction_11-03-2025