(Download) "Tinch v. Walters" by United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Tinch v. Walters
- Author : United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit
- Release Date : January 24, 1985
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
This is an appeal by Harry N. Walters, in his official capacity as the Administrator of the Veterans Administration, from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The issue presented is whether a V.A. regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.301 (c)(2), which equates primary alcoholism with "willful misconduct" was rendered ineffective by the 1978 amendment to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the Rehabilitation Act). 29 U.S.C. § 794. Primary alcoholism, unlike other forms of the disease, is not attributed to underlying psychological problems. the amended version of Section 504 prevents discrimination against handicapped people in programs receiving government aid. Plaintiff-appellee Tinch, who suffers from primary alcoholism, contends that because Section 504 prevents such discrimination [discrimination], it precludes application of the regulation equating primary alcoholism with willful misconduct. As a veteran, Mr. Tinch was eligible for educational benefits. Benefits were to be available until the delimiting date defined by 38 U.S.C. § 1662 (a)(1) as being ten years after Mr. Tinchs discharge or May 31, 1976, which ever is later in time. In attempting to prevent the application of 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(c)(2), Tinch seeks to take advantage of a provision in 38 U.S.C. § 1662(a)(1) which extends the time during which educational benefits are available to those who are handicapped as a result of their own willful misconduct. Tinch claims that because the V.A. regulation equating primary alcoholism with willful misconduct was no longer valid after enactment of the 1978 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act, he is entitled to an extension of his delimiting date. The district court held in favor of Mr. Tinch. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the ruling of the district court.